Ben Tonra: Yes. The idea that being “neutral” made Ireland a better class of country is a myth
Europe has changed: suddenly, radically and dangerously. If any government refused to address this reality it would be failing in its primary duty: to ensure the security of its people, its territory and its values.
Finland and Sweden – which followed their own paths of neutrality and then independent defence – are at the coal face of new threats to European security. After challenging national debates led by serious political leaders, they have joined Nato to guarantee their own security and to join the defence of their neighbours. The Baltic States – also our EU partners – bear the brunt of a new hybrid warfare: disinformation, cyberattack and intimidation. All European governments are grappling with the implications of Russia’s effort to wipe Ukraine from the map.
Meanwhile, the traditional guarantor of European defence, the United States, has embarked on a new path under President Donald Trump. Whether he’s threatening to invade and occupy part of Denmark, to abandon Nato or to punish the EU for taxing and regulating US corporations, Trump’s America First foreign policy is in full flight. It is forcing European governments to consider how best they can defend themselves – possibly alone – against new and evolving threats.
Ireland’s traditional military neutrality was never political neutrality, neither during the cold war nor after. It was always limited to a “traditional military neutrality” that simply meant that Ireland did not join any military alliance. It allowed the Irish State to ignore its own defence, secure in its geography. It also facilitated a myth that somehow by being “neutral” it made Ireland a better class of country.
Should Ireland revisit its neutrality? Prof Ben Tonra and Dr Raymond Murphy debate
Gregor Townsend puts his mind to breaking Scotland’s sorry cycle against Ireland
Laura Slattery: Should RTÉ stop showing Chitty Chitty Bang Bang so much?
Maurice Deegan: Referees benefit from rule changes as football gets faster
In principle, of course, neutrality is essentially selfish. It’s the diplomatic equivalent of “gach aon duine ar a shon féin, gach aon duine ar mhaithe leis féin” (every person for his or herself). But then, every state acts selfishly in its own interests. It’s weaving that selfishness into a higher moral code that is mythmaking. One of these is that neutrality is a necessary condition for Ireland’s record of UN peacekeeping, its development aid, its human rights activities or its ability to act as a diplomatic agent for peace. Frankly, if you look at the record in any of these areas you will find Nato members such as Norway, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and now both Finland and Sweden who, proportionately, often do more and do it better.
For all that, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – to prevent Ireland from continuing to sit on its laurels, exploiting its geographic blessings to the maximum. However, the European Union is now moving at breakneck speed to strengthen the defence capacity of its member states and work towards elements of collective defence. The question will be asked: “are you with us or are you not?”. Enormous Irish diplomatic efforts have been made over many decades to avoid such a direct question. EU treaties and declarations are littered with meticulously crafted text designed to protect the practice of Irish neutrality and shield it from the light of interrogation. Reality, however, is brutal. To give a stark example, if Russia were indeed to invade any of the Baltic States, would Ireland refuse to offer full military assistance, including lethal aid?
[ Nato and Irish neutrality – John Mulqueen on a vexed political issueOpens in new window ]
In the meantime, Irish policymakers have woken to the threats faced by Ireland itself, against some of which geography no longer offers protection. Whether that is Russian vessels loitering over vital international sea cables in Irish waters, cyberattacks on the health system or disinformation designed to promote far-right violence. Work has at least started on building a credible national defence and security capacity. Ireland can decide to pursue this independently or choose deeper co-operation with its EU partners.
The choice is Ireland’s alone, but Ireland’s EU partners – especially the most vulnerable – will want an answer. If the answer is no – based on tradition, history, geography and myths of Irish exceptionalism, Ireland’s partners may or not be shocked, but they will draw their own conclusions, in their own interests.
Professor Ben Tonra, MRIA, is in the UCD School of Politics and International Relations
[ Ireland’s neutrality under attack: shifting geopolitics bring pressure to changeOpens in new window ]
Raymond Murphy: No. We should not abandon our neutrality, even if it isolates us from our EU partners
The 2015 White Paper on Defence states that Ireland continues to maintain a policy of military neutrality. This has been characterised by non-membership of military alliances and non-participation in common or mutual defence arrangements. While this has been a fundamental principle of Irish foreign policy, the policy of Irish political parties with respect to neutrality has evolved over time.
We should not abandon our policy of military neutrality, despite the fact that this may isolate us somewhat from our EU partners and most likely they will not understand our history and perspective.
Ireland has played a significant role as a member of the UN, especially when elected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. This success owed much to our policy of military neutrality and perceived independence, especially on a range of issues including disarmament, human rights and nuclear non-proliferation.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the nuclear threats it has made have largely driven a new wave of militarisation across Europe. Even before that, global military expenditure had been increasing and in 2023 the US alone is estimated to have spent nearly $916 billion (€884 billion) on military expenditure.
Given the multiple crises confronting humanity at present, such expenditure is immoral and obscene. In addition to pressuring Finland and Sweden to seek membership in Nato, the perception of an increasingly unpredictable and aggressive Russia has led the alliance to boost its deterrence capabilities. These efforts have focused primarily on conventional forces, but arguments are also being made for strengthening nuclear deterrence. Proposals being discussed include deploying new types of nuclear weapons and increasing the capacity of US non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe.
Despite calls for increased European defence spending, a case can be made that Nato has no need to augment its already superior conventional forces by increasing reliance on weapons of mass destruction. None of these proposals or an arms race cycle will promote long-term solutions to Europe’s security challenges. And how compatible will membership of a military alliance be with Ireland’s advocacy over many decades on nuclear and conventional disarmament?
The arms industry is hugely profitable with a powerful lobby. Additional expenditure on armaments will not make the world a safer or more secure place. We should be deeply suspicious of what former US president and allied supreme commander in Europe during the second World War, Dwight D Eisenhower, referred to as the military industrial complex.
Recent events in the Middle East have confirmed that we need to have an independent foreign policy on certain issues. We can make little difference in terms of military contribution to the “defence” of Europe, but adopting an independent policy on issues such as Gaza and Ukraine may actually be more beneficial for resolving conflicts. This may make us unique and help facilitate Ireland playing a role as an honest broker and forge links with the Global South.
Irish neutrality is critical to cultivating trust and forging links with the Global South. It is also evidence of our commitment to multilateralism. Even if many in Ireland do not fully understand what exactly our policy is or its implications, there is ample evidence that they do not want Ireland to join Nato or surrender what remains of our military neutrality.
Today it sometimes feels like the world is heading inexorably towards another major international conflagration and we are seemingly helpless to prevent this. Increased militarisation is not the solution. Military neutrality should remain a fundamental tenet of Irish foreign policy. Ireland can still play a role in promoting disarmament and political processes ahead of military solutions. Ireland’s real strength lies in its capacity to utilise its soft power to forge alliances with a wide range of global actors, including our EU partners, while maintaining an independent foreign policy based on the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.
Dr Ray Murphy is a professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights in the School of Law, University of Galway
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
