Rite & Reason: Political without military support to an invaded neighbour is just gesture politics

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – together with its stated goals of restoring Russian control over Europe to the river Elbe and destroying liberal democracy – have shaken the five neutrals.

Two, Finland and Sweden, are abandoning neutrality. Austria, Ireland, and Switzerland agonise over its moral ambiguity and political implications.

Even Switzerland’s mountains and passes are no defence against cyber attacks. Ireland is compromised by an inability to evict hostile warplanes and warships.

The Government’s current public consultation has the right focus: international security policy. It is outward looking, recognising that our security is inseparable from that of all Europe.

On Instagram I see the body of a Palestinian toddler, an ad for a wetsuit, Oprah talking

---

Ten minutes with Jennifer Lopez: ‘How do I go where my heart is leading me without fear? I say tread forward’

---

Irish Olympian Jack Woolley: ‘We’ve sat in saunas and not drank water for two days’

---

Mark Moriarty: two 15-minute meals made easy, with a few simple tricks

---

Discussion of Irish neutrality has been conceptually confused in several ways.

First, to say that neutrality is a fundamental principle is to confuse a means with an end. Peace and international order are ends or fundamental principles; neutrality and military alliance are merely possible means to those ends. Changing contexts determine which is the better means.

Second, claiming to be militarily but not politically neutral presumes that military neutrality has no political significance. But Nato’s military support makes the decisive political difference that enables the very existence of the Baltic states. Political without military support to an invaded neighbour is just gesture politics.

Third – contrary to popular impression – positive neutrality committed to international peacekeeping does not require neutrality. Nato is peacekeeping in Kosovo.

Fourth, refusing involvement with Nato because some members have nuclear weapons is naive. Without Nato there would be more, not fewer, nuclear-armed countries in Europe.

[ The Irish Times view on Irish defence policy: defining neutrality ]

Since it is only a means, a focus on neutrality gets us nowhere. The focus should be on our vision for Ireland in Europe. Once clarified, whether there is a role for neutrality should become clear.

Unlike in other continents, local wars in Europe tend to spread. The 18th century endured four continentwide wars, and in the 20th century two world wars devastated the continent.

The first secretary general of Nato famously remarked that it had three goals: to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. The third goal applies to any European country resentful of the loss of former territories: at present there are about three such in central Europe, not counting Russia. Dynastic wars are a thing of the past, so must nationalist and imperialist wars be – if Europe is to survive. Is that possible?

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” So said the Book of Proverbs a few millenniums ago.

We don’t have to join Nato but, no more than any other small European state, we cannot manage self-defence on our own. Our collaboration should be unrestricted, equal to that of our EU comrades

More recently Lennart Meri, first president of Estonia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, stated: “Europe is not a geography – it is a set of values and principles.” Czech novelist Milan Kundera said something similar in his 1984 essay The Tragedy of Central Europe.

These values include democracy, human rights, freedom (of expression, of association, of religion), the rule of law and independent courts. They reject dictatorship and aggressive nationalism aiming at territorial expansion or forcible ‘reunion’ with former territories.

We too have had to fight for those values. In the 1998 Belfast Agreement, we committed to changing our notion of a united Ireland from a territorial reunion in a unitary state to a unity of the people, with mutual respect, acceptance of cultural diversity and open-ended negotiation on political arrangements.

Nationalist Ireland is still journeying to the place where it wants to say Ireland is not a geography, but a set of values and a way of life, open to immigrants and a haven for refugees.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s threats against Taiwan exemplify the challenge to those values. Their rhetoric attacks liberal democracy and their policies seek its overthrow, fearing its influence on their own people. It is their conviction and their hope that liberal democracies are too materialistic and too pacifist – too morally weak – to fight for those values. Dreams can be haunted by the nightmares of the past. The European Union, including Ireland, is being tested.

The advent of cyberwarfare forces recognition that Ireland’s island status on the edge of Europe does not insulate us from attack.

Vindicating those values requires political, military and cyber collaboration. We don’t have to join Nato but, no more than any other small European state, we cannot manage self-defence on our own. Our collaboration should be unrestricted, equal to that of our EU comrades. Fairness, or the duty of sharing common burdens equally, requires it. Those are the goals. Neutrality must be judged on whether it promotes or hinders them.

Séamus Murphy is an Irish Jesuit priest and professor of philosophy at Loyola University Chicago