Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Since the conflict began in Ukraine, western governments have scrambled to form and maintain a united front against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression. They’ve imposed heavy sanctions and pledged military and humanitarian aid in support of Ukraine.
Ireland, despite being a small island nation, has played no small part in the diplomatic efforts in recent weeks, as a member of the European Union and with its seat on the UN Security Council. As Ireland is a neutral country, the government here has had to navigate the new geopolitical realities under that umbrella and this has caused much frustration and debate at home in recent weeks.
Speaking last month, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said, “Whilst militarily neutral, we’re not politically neutral”, a line repeated by senior ministers since this conflict began.
But what does Irish neutrality mean in the face of a fresh global crisis in 2022? Many would say that the Irish government bypassed neutrality 20 years ago by nailing its colours to the US mast by facilitating the landing of US military personnel at Shannon Airport. Can Ireland truly maintain a neutral stance with Russian troops at the door of Europe?
During Leaders’ Questions In the Dáil this week, Galway TD Catherine Connolly expressed her anger at recent comments around neutrality, saying “the policy of neutrality is not a passive policy. It’s a very active policy”. Here, former foreign affairs minister Charlie Flanagan and People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett set out their views on Irish neutrality in a changing world:
Charlie Flanagan: Ireland must get serious on Security and Defence…
IN FUTURE YEARS when the history of this century is being written, February 2022 will be marked as the month when President Putin of Russia unleashed the dogs of war in Europe.
His decision to invade Ukraine, supported by the Russian political, military and diplomatic establishment was prepared for and planned over a long period of time. President Putin rejected intense diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis in favour of war. Indeed, President Macron of France has categorised Putin’s approach as “duplicitous.” Putin will be remembered as another monster of European history.
I have read President’s Putin long dissertation on Russian/Ukraine relations, published in July of last year. It is obvious from that piece he is an old-style Russian nationalist and imperialist.
He does not recognise the legitimacy of Ukrainian sovereignty and he wishes to impose his will, by force, on his neighbours. Putin claims that Ukrainians and Russians are family, but he has now turned the guns on his brothers and sisters. The invasion of Ukraine is the latest in a series of military adventures by President Putin and his henchmen. Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Syria, Crimea, Donbas, Kazakhstan, Belarus are all part of the same pattern of behaviour. Brutal military adventures across Europe have been accompanied by assassinations, poisonings and the suppression of internal dissent. At home, in Russia, arbitrary imprisonment has become commonplace.
The defence question
The invasion of Ukraine has sent shock waves around the world. The international response has been impressive on a variety of levels. Resistance by the Ukrainian army and public is stronger than Putin expected. There is evidence that some in the Russian military are questioning the invasion and many individual soldiers appear uncomfortable when challenged by Ukrainian citizens.
Despite the risk of imprisonment, there is also evidence of growing dissent within Russia. This is Putin’s war, not the war of the Russian people. It is unlikely however that President Putin will be removed from power in the short term. More likely is the danger however that he will double down on his naked military aggression as he meets resistance at home and abroad. He has already made sinister threats regarding nuclear weapons. His mindset is unlikely to change and he may prefer to go down in flames rather than a reversal of course.
The invasion of Ukraine has forced a dramatic reassessment of the threat and risk posed to Europe and the wider world by President Putin and Russia. Germany in particular has benefited from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent peace dividend. However, it has become dependent on Russia for more than 50% of its gas supplies. During the last 30 years, it has also underinvested in defence. Its military capacity has been seriously eroded during the same period.
General Alfons Mas, Head of the German Army, in a frank comment last week said – “the army I have the honour of leading, is more or less empty-handed”. German Chancellor Scholz then announced a major investment programme in Germany’s military but of course, it will take time to deliver.
Irish neutrality
The tragedy in Ukraine has as strong message for Ireland and our approach to security and defence. Our geographic position and the fact that NATO provides security for Western Europe has given us the luxury of avoiding difficult choices. Effectively we have been freeloaders.
The Irish position on security and defence is no longer tenable. Ireland may not be aligned militarily but we are not politically neutral. We share a community of interest with the European Union. Our membership of the EU and our relationship with the United States is central to Ireland’s wellbeing and prosperity.
The future of the EU is also Ireland’s future. Membership of the EU brings responsibility to actively engage with the Common Security and Defence Policy of the EU. As chair of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I have been engaged in discussions with other non-aligned members of the EU such as Sweden, Austria and Finland on their understanding of security and defence issues within the EU.
Now is the time that Ireland must look to our own defences. The recent report of the Commission on the Defence Forces has set the framework of that debate. The Report has set out what is required – the Defence Forces will be a joint military force capable of providing the people of Ireland with a safe and secure environment and enforcing and protecting Ireland’s sovereignty.
The report sets out what needs to be done to achieve this goal. It will involve major re-organisation of the Defence Forces and will also require significantly enhanced resources. At a minimum, our defence forces must be in a position to patrol and monitor Ireland’s airspace and our territorial waters and wider economic zone. We must also be in a position to defend ourselves against disruptive cyberattacks and misinformation campaigns aimed at destabilising our society and political system.
I intend the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, will be the forum where this report and related issues can be discussed in depth. Critical issues surrounding investment, recruitment, staff retention and career progression in the Defence Forces, can no longer be ignored or put on the long finger.
Peacekeepers
Ireland’s military has a proud record of peacekeeping across the world, and this must be maintained. Peacekeeping is a necessary and valuable contribution to security in many conflict zones.
Ireland’s capacity to participate in peacekeeping missions should not be subject to the veto of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Russia and China affect much of Ireland’s Foreign Policy. Participation in UN peacekeeping missions should only need the consent of the government and the Dáil Eireann.
On Ukraine, US intelligence on the imminence of the Russian threat turned out to be accurate. European countries’ wishful thinking and their close economic and business ties with Russia may well have clouded their judgement. The US is now prominent in the pushback against Russian aggression. Only a few years ago former US President Donald Trump was contemplating withdrawing the US from NATO.
We live in uncertain times. Ireland must be willing to shoulder greater responsibility for our own security and defence and that of the European Union. I have learned from countries like Finland and Sweden that strong defences are the most effective security guarantees of all.
It’s important for Ireland to closely study the shifting ground on the part of the so-called neutral countries. Finland and Sweden have now been given access to all NATO meetings and briefings on Ukraine.
The invasion of Ukraine is a wake-up call for Europe, for Germany in particular, and for the wider world. It is also a wake-up call for Ireland. We must be prepared to learn from the daily tragedy in eastern Europe, and the scale of the risks and challenges the European Union must now confront.
Charles Flanagan TD is Chair of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs & Defence and a former Minister in both the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice.
================= On the other hand ===============
Richard Boyd Barrett: Ireland must defend its neutrality
THE WORLD IS rightly horrified by the brutal invasion of Ukraine instigated by Vladimir Putin. Bloody images of wrecked cities, dead bodies, people being forced to drink out of puddles and the ensuing humanitarian and refugee crisis shows us that Putin is a warmonger, a thug and a despot. We must be unequivocal in condemning Putin’s inexcusable and murderous actions in Ukraine.
We must all extend our solidarity to the Ukrainian people and redouble our efforts to extend humanitarian aid to the people in Ukraine and refuge to those who have been forced to flee their homes in terrifying conditions.
However, it is alarming that the terrible events in Ukraine are being used by a chorus of media commentators to suggest Ireland should abandon its military neutrality or, in some cases, call nakedly for NATO membership and participation in military alliances.
Worryingly, these sentiments are also echoed by senior figures and TDs in the government, particularly, within Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil.
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney, at the Council of Foreign Affairs in New York this week, said Irish politics was changing in response to the Ukraine crisis and suggested a greater appetite for spending more on defence, greater co-operation with other EU countries and partnerships with NATO.
This follows similar comments from the Tánaiste, Leo Varadkar, who said we “need to think about greater involvement in European defence,” – a defence, of course, directly aligned with NATO through PESCO. Taoiseach, Micheál Martin echoed the same theme, saying “Neutrality is a policy issue that can change at any time.”
This is very worrying language and points to the direction that the Irish government wishes to lead us. Already, military neutrality has been substantially undermined by Ireland’s support for US imperialist adventures in the Middle East.
Over two million US soldiers have passed through Shannon airport on the way to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Now it seems that the Ukrainian invasion will be used to further undermine neutrality and justify spending billions more on arms and weapons. The clamour to do so is especially ironic coming as it does from parties that have overseen a crisis in the pay and conditions of our ordinary defence personnel for decades.
Muddied waters
People Before Profit believes it is imperative that we protect our traditional policy of military neutrality and that abandoning that policy would be absolutely the wrong response to this crisis.
Ireland’s policy of neutrality has its origins in the foundation of our state when the 1916 Rising and the revolution of 1918-21 were precisely revolts against the imperial slaughter of World War 1. James Connolly famously led the Irish Citizens Army out to the GPO under the banner “for neither King nor Kaiser”, in other words, rejecting both imperial alliances in World War 1.
Ireland should not now abandon that proud, if sullied, tradition of opposing all warmongers and empires.
The solution to Putin’s bloody warmongering in Ukraine is not to align with military alliances such as NATO, whose leading members, particularly the US and UK, have equally bloody records of warmongering in Iraq and Afghanistan – wars that claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
As we speak, NATO members, the US, UK and France arm and support the brutal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, to conduct a war in Yemen that has claimed the lives of 377,000 people and brought 14 million people to the brink of famine.
The US and other European NATO members continue to arm, support and trade with Israel who have now been indicted by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for Apartheid, crimes against humanity, and systematic breaches of international law against the Palestinian people.
Double standards?
It is absolutely right that the Irish government have been so forthright in their condemnation of Putin’s warmongering in Ukraine. However, it demonstrates remarkable double standards that our government refuses to condemn equally the war crimes or crimes against humanity committed by the big western powers or their allies, such as Israel or Saudi, and indeed trenchantly resist calls for sanctions to be opposed on these regimes for their crimes.
The fact that Ireland is a neutral state gives us the moral credibility to speak out against all warmongering, occupation and oppression, whether it is Russia, the US, China, Israel, Saudi or anywhere else. It also makes Ireland as a country, and Irish soldiers on peace-keeping missions abroad, less of a target for military attack or terrorism.
The last thing that we need to do in the face of Putin’s warmongering in Ukraine is to encourage the idea that more militarism and arms spending is the solution, or to align with other military alliances whose leading powers have been and are guilty instigating and supporting equally horrific atrocities elsewhere in the world.
In fact, now more than ever, as we witness the disastrous consequences of Putin’s war in Ukraine, it is crucially important for Ireland as a neutral country to be a voice of opposition to all war, occupation, empire and the global arms trade.
Ireland must be the leading voice internationally for the de-escalation of conflict and for peace.
Richard Boyd Barrett is a People Before Profit TD for Dún Laoghaire in Dublin.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Maybe the EU should have had a lawyer look at the contract before signing! Bit of legal advice maybe….?
@Peter B: The EU couldn’t deal with youth unemployment in Southern Europe, the debacle of the Greek economy, the migrant crisis, terrorism and brexit. I never thought for one second that they could deal with this. And the sad thing is we can’t even hold them accountable. What a sham!
@Crispy Brown: examples of who did deal expertly with those things for a bit of balance would be good, thanks
@Peter B: best reasonable effort doesn’t justify selling to the U.K. first and the U.K. factories are included in the contract as if part of the EU, the contract justifies the EU position.
@Crispy Brown: did you pop in here from the Torygraph?
@Peter B: clearly AZ have messed up here not the EU. They took over €300 million from the EU up front to start making it.
@J: after the UK had already made a deal
@Peter B: if you read the contract as now released you will see that Astra Zeneca hasn’t a leg to stand on. The Commission should go after them hard.
@Noj Nikrub: that doesn’t matter. Contract ms don’t work like that.
@Peter B: Absolutely. It is a classic longform contract that each side can interpret as they want. The EU might find judges that agree with their interpretation but it’s just as likely the judges would agree with the AZ interpretation. In any case by the time it would be resolved in a court case the Pandemic will be over or we’ll be dealing with the next one! EU does a great job proving the Tories right that it is too bureaucratic for its own good!
@Eugene Norman: leave eu more likely
@Noj Nikrub: irrelevant
@Noj Nikrub: That’s irrelevant. A contract is a contract. The date it was signed counts for nothing, it is the agreement it contains.
@Eugene Norman: again NO! The UK left the EU on 31st Jan 2020, before the contract was signed. They were not part of the EU since that date. During the transition period the UK was a third country already.
I foresee this debacle is AstraZeneca shooting themselves in the foot. Over a longer period of time, they will need the EU. Remember the EU is the largest trading block.
A business should never alienate a customer, and that is what AstraZeneca is doing.
The EU will find a way around this problem. It will take a bit longer, but they will find it. And AstraZeneca will pay in the long run, one way or another
@Bob Tallent: lol. EU mucked up. Simple. Now they are scrambling for excuses.
@Parked: no they didn’t
@Parked: how exactly?
There’s a long time saying in business that says the customer is always right. And I used to run a business training course called the Customer is King.
AstraZeneca is losing sight of a lot of business principles. Thats why I foresee them paying in the long term
@Parked: please tell us who isn’t keeping up to their legal responsibility in that contract?
@Bob Tallent: exactly
@Bob Tallent: this was one of the facts bounded about during Brexit, The EU is a dwindling economic power, it’s not going to be the biggest for long unless it changes.
No matter how often the European Commission keeps stressing that the argument is not with the Britain but with a private company, this is nonetheless like a gift for Boris Johnson, since it seems as though the commission is inadvertedly achieving the impossible: uniting Remain and Leave voters.
@Mick Tobin: Nobody cares what Johnson thinks anymore, not Leaver, not Remainer, he’s delivered a total mess, not quite an Eton mess but a very large mess, his days are numbered and everybody knows they’re putting the squeeze on AZ and this is the way for AZ to get out from under the Tory jackboot.
@Mick Tobin: the EU doesn’t care about Britain and its internal politics and why should it.
@Mick Tobin: but one has to wonder how 100k dead plays out in this unification under Boris?
Timing of the contract is pertinent. If UK was a part of the EU at the time, it is a reasonable interpretation to say EU includes the UK.
So it seems it amounts to a UK involved company thinking they get to keep the money and take their ball with them when they leave. The company has made a pandemic vaccine political and long term will pay the price. People generally don’t sign repeated contracts with individuals, companies, and governments that don’t live up to their end.
@Carol Oates: The contract explicitly had a provision that for manufacturing site purposes, the EU was to be interpreted to include the UK (5.4).
It doesn’t have a provision that “due to the transition period” (which you could argue implicitly terminated the provision on 1 January) and it doesn’t otherwise mention a time limit for when the provision ends.
@Gerard: It could be argued all right and should be argued in court. Negotiation has obiviously failed. It is very obivious the spirit of the contract was the company would make every effort to deliver and are not doing so. Countries need to know one way or another what is happening. If the UK government thinks supporting their stance will earn them any points in future negotiations with the EU or the company thinks making it an arguable contract will work to their favor in future, they are living in dreamland. Its the EUs fault for trusting them to live up to the spirit of the contract and actually make the best effort promised.
@Carol Oates: there’s no argument. It’s in the contract.
@Carol Oates: this won’t go to court. AZ will just have to find a way or face the consequences.
@Eugene Norman: There is an argument only to the point that anything can be argued, even if facts don’t support it. Whether AZ should argue it or can possibly find a winning argument is the question.
@Carol Oates: The UK left the EU on the 31 January 2020 after that was a transition period, there was nobody representing the UK in the EU after that date and they were not paying into the EU either.
@Carol Oates: this is the issue though, The UK left The EU on the 31st Jan 2020, so it wasn’t part of the EU when the contract was signed.
It seems pretty clear to me that the contract justifies the EU position. Best reasonable effort doesn’t mean you get to sell to another customer in preference. Any other contract they entered into is irrelevant to this one. The factories in the U.K. are considered to be part of the deal. Where are the mouth breathers who opine that this proves the U.K./AZ position coming from?
@Eugene Norman: best reasonable effort could however be subject to other agreements taking precedence…like a contract signed 3 months earlier.
@Joan Murray: no it couldn’t. That’s not the way contract law works. What’s signed when means nothing. If I sign a contract with a candle maker for 100 candles that he has guaranteed then he owes me 100 candles. A best effort clause would only apply if there was a shortage of candle wax or whatever. Privileging other clients doesn’t work.
@Eugene Norman: but in your analogy there was a shortage of candle wax. The production from the continental sites was not high enough to meet the best efforts?
Yesterday I was blaming the EU but it seems that AZ are at fault after all. The vaccines manufacturered in the UK should be part of the EU supply as per the contract. It’s an ugly row and hopefully it will get sorted out soon.
But the argument of AZ appears to be the UK ordered first, so that makes it priority, because of the “best effort provision”. If you can’t do it, you can’t do it, and so you have made your best effort. But if you CAN do it, it’s just you promised it to someone else first, and the contract doesn’t say you can do that, I don’t see how that’s “best effort”.
Otherwise best effort would just mean whatever the company wants it to mean based on their business priorities.
In any case, any legal arguments are probably beside the point, because it’ll end up being settled by politics, not law.
@Gerard: it’s clear AZ have signed contracts to deliver more than they can. The timing of the contract signing is irrelevant. There must be penalties built in for breach of contract which I assume is driving AZ’s decision on who to cut back on
@Gerard: of course you are right. If I ask a factory for 300 widgets by Q1, and there is a best effort clause it’s only a get out clause of they have manufacturing problems. Other clients are not my issue. Who signed first isn’t part of contract law either.
@Eugene Norman: well actually, earlier agreements do impact the enforcement of a contract. The UK contract could have priority, but it hasn’t been published
@Joan Murray: that would be a liability to the UK only.
It doesn’t impact other contracts without explicit reference because a party can’t agree to terms it doesn’t know about.
@Joan Murray: incorrect .. they would have had to reveal that .. also clause in contract saying no other agreements with third parties can supersede this contract
@Joan Murray: no they don’t John – not unless specified in the contract.
No matter what you are reading in the Tory press that just isn’t true and it couldn’t be true. If it were true then contracts would be worthless pieces of paper if you signed any provider with existing customers. Capitalism would collapse.
“So this contract we just signed guarantees 99.99% uptime”.
“Sure. Although of course our existing clients come first and you might get 50% or so since they get first dibs”.
What a mess us humans are in..
He said, she said, they said. If it wasn’t so serious, it would sound like petulant children having an argument.
@Deborah Blacoe: Eh, they’ve just published the contract to stop the hearsay
Ah I see our qualified journal.ie posters have not only qualifications in epidemiology, but now, EU contract law, remarkable.
@Ally Mc Culladgh: it’s hard to tell which side you are attacking here but contract law is pretty simple on the matter of when contracts are signed. It doesn’t matter unless it’s specified in the contract itself.
@Eugene Norman: please explain how contract law is simple. It is infact extremely complex. Also different countries have different laws. This one comes under Belgium law. So please enlighten us all on the simplicity of contract laws in Belgium
No-one has seen the contract signed with the UK…. maybe they have a cast iron contract to guarantee delivery, which pre dates the EU contract and therefore has precedence. Ireland and any other EU country could have opted not to wait while the EU bureaucrats dithered over signing a contract in the first place Hungary has gone this route, despite being tut-tutted at – though I am not sure I would want to rely on the Russian vaccine. we could be well on our way to having all the most vulnerable vaccinated by now. And, the EU still hasn’t approved the Oxford vaccine, and looks like it won’t be approved for over 65s in any event. This is what happens with decision making in a bureaucracy.
@Joan Murray: you (EU) can’t have been considered to have accepted a provision in a contract (the UK one) that you haven’t seen.
Either it says “we have other priorities” in the EU contract, and lists what those are and what their terms are, or they are irrelevant
@Joan Murray: that’s like saying, “I agreed to pay my mortgage, but I promised I’d repay money I borrowed from a friend as a priority.”
Your friend has every right to expect you to pay them first, since you promised them that. But the bank doesn’t need to care — they didn’t agree you could pay your friend first.
@Gerard: good analogy.
An article in Spectator Magazine headed EU does not understand contract law publishes clause in contract between Commission and Curevac (german suppliers) by which curevac undertakes to use its best reasonable endeavours to make available by end of April vacines for member states having regard to it commitment under other order (to germany direct) No doubt contract with Pfeizer contains same clause .
the contract between the commission and curevac is dependent on the agreement between member states and commission to purchase thru block scheme with a freedom to opt out.
No wonder govt cant be sure when there will be easing of restrictions if this is contract for supply of vacine govt is relying on A contract that allows suppliers fulfill commitment to other orders. TD have not mentioned any of this either .
@Mary Ward: The Spectator is heavily partisan (Tory).
Which doesn’t make it false, but where something is in dispute, it’s always going to be the pro-UK pro-Tory slant.
@Mary Ward: that’s not this contract which doesn’t mention prior commitment
@Mary Ward: the spectator is virulently anti EU so no surprise there.
All animals are equal
But some animals are
More equal than others!
The cracks are widening as I see it with national divisions widening at an EU level…
@Jim: I see no divisions. Except with the U.K.
@Jim: the only cracks I see are in AZ’s position. I heard L.O’Neill on a weiner last night wonder out loud why Oxford has chosen AZ as partner. They have no track record in vaccines which involves a complex process whereas companies like Pfizer and J andJ do.
@Brendan Greene: webinar
@Brendan Greene: “why AZ?” Simple, Oxford Uni we’re going to work with Merck in Germany, but the UK Gov said no, we’ll fund it but you have to have the manufacturing in The UK, so they changed to AZ.
If the Eu are so bothered about the contract then they should publish it un redacted….
@Eddie Michael: Astra published it after the European threatened to so . Interestingly the page showing the definition of cost was completely redacted by Astra
Does AZ not realise the EU could chew them pieces over this. Any contract they had with the UK, if not mentioned and agreed to in the EU contract, means absolutely nothing.
@Pádraic Ó Braonáin: that is probably the most s… tupid statement I have read …. we are the EU, do as we say.
@Hugh Fogerty: No Hugh, do as you said you will do in the contract.
Remarkable how much anti EU and pro Brexit sentiment on this board. It’s clearly not reflective of reality. I suppose if you spend a lot of time online as an English speaker the British produce a lot of output.
Also the misunderstanding of contract law is comical.
Holy schit how bad has all of this been handled. If the anti eu crowd needed a spark here it is.
The EU have just authorized its use so it seems reasonable to deliver to countries that authorized it first.
As it only works for 60% of cases, the EU should try to use better alternatives if possible.
@Tom Mullally: but keeps nearly 100% out of hospital as after getting the 2nd dose as they only get mild symptoms
What’s the point in publishing it if it’s heavily redacted.
The article is incorrect in its stipulation of the position of The UK at the time the contract was signed: The UK left The EU on the 31st Jan 2020. When this contract was signed The UK had already left The EU!
You do realise astrazeneca is Swedish and UK business with its main offices in Sweden 5000 employees . So are they going to punish Sweden. The EU showed its true colours by trying to bring in article 16 but backed down. They could try to go through the courts which will take years and the EU would probably lose. They should try diplomacy instead of bullying tactics like they have used on Ireland and Greece
Actually you are incorrect the contract was signed on the 27th of August 2020
have your say