Harry McGee: Neutrality is no longer the comfort blanket it once was

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia this week has opened up a fissure in the “never again” bedrock that contributed to a historically long period of peace in Europe.

The short-term outcome of this conflict is not too hard to predict as it relies on brutal mathematics. Russia knows that no other military alliance will intervene on behalf of Ukraine. Its military might is so overwhelming it will be sufficient to overrun the country.

In the longer-term it is harder to second guess how it will maintain its grip in the face of a hostile population, a guerrilla rebel army, and where it is politically and militarily isolated by most other countries.

The development presents us in Ireland with uncomfortable questions with which we have not had to grapple for a generation or more. What do we do when a regime or state actor – which does not abide by our rules or norms – invades one of our neighbours?

EU policies in Africa risk increasing danger for migrants

---

Jennifer O’Connell: Some ration their heating as others shop for Jimmy Choos

---

Breda O’Brien: Volunteers are a vital humanising force in Irish society

---

The Irish Times view on UCD and China: a case to answer

---

No answers to that question are complete or satisfactory. Neutrality is no longer the comfort blanket it once was. Globalisation, increased inter-dependency between countries and asymmetric warfare perpetrated by non-state actors make it harder to do a Pontius Pilate on it militarily.

The debate in the Dáil on European security this week (albeit held 24 hours before the invasion) illustrated the lack of deep thinking about our neutrality and our status in the world.

For one we are now a member of the European Union. The reality is it is as much a political union as an economic one. In that context there is an ongoing debate about European defence mainly manifested around Pesco, the EU’s vehicle for permanent structured co-operation. There is also Nato: European-based; American-dominated.

New members

Since the end of the Cold War Nato has grown hugely with 14 new members since 1997, all former Soviet Bloc countries. One of the justifications by Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine was his claim it was about to be subsumed into Nato, thus leaving Belarus as the sole eastern European state aligned to Moscow.

Those on the left in Ireland, including Sinn Féin, argue equally against Nato and against Pesco. Arguably one of the reasons Nato has grown so strongly in Europe has been because of an absence of a mechanism for developing defence within the EU.

It’s always dangerous to venture into the world of hypothesis but saying you are always opposed to a military response in all circumstances is a difficult argument to make. On the other side of the coin, justifying military intervention is also very problematic.

Ukraine confronts us with a different proposition. What do we do when one of our neighbours is attacked by a dictatorship? What if Putin – in a moment of madness – decided to annex Estonia to gain more access to the Baltic Sea? Now Estonia is a member of Nato so that’s a big deterrent. But what if it wasn’t. What would the EU do if one of its non-Nato members were to be attacked by a bully state? What would Ireland do?

No respect

There was a fair deal of whataboutery from the left during the debate in the Dáil this week. Here is the argument put forward, for example, by Independent TD Catherine Connolly.

“[Putin] is a dictator with no respect for democracy. Nato’s role in all of this has already been outlined by some colleagues on the left, but certainly not on the right. Nato has played a despicable role in moving forward to the border and engaging in warmongering. Ireland has been hypocritical on many levels.”

The impression you get is of an equivalence in terms of Nato’s role. But that is not true. It has not been warmongering. It hasn’t invaded any countries. All former Soviet Bloc States which joined did so voluntarily and were not press-ganged into doing so.

Yemen was also mentioned. What happened there was atrocious. Saudi Arabia is a despicable state and I, for one, would lose no sleep if we severed diplomatic relations with it. Most Irish people also opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But some equate neutrality to remaining on the moral high ground. Some parties of the left are not in favour of sanctions, preferring building up a mass “anti-war movement”.

If you are neutral and pacifist, and if you don’t back sanctions, you are standing idly by. In a connected world they are an extremely powerful tool, and indeed – and Ukraine is a test case – could work out in the long-term as a more effective means of deterrent than a military arsenal.

Besides, a popular anti-war movement in Russia would not last five minutes before its leaders would be shipped off to the gulags.

In his Dáil speech Sinn Féin’s spokesman John Brady spent as much time talking about Israel and Boris Johnson (and China for some reason) than he did about Ukraine.

Others, including Mairéad Farrell, used the “moral equivalence” debate focusing on Pesco and the “sinister plan to suck in Irish industry and SMEs to be involved in this military-industrial sector”. War and armaments are the very antithesis of sustainability, she said.

Neutrality is not a concept that applies only to “other places”. When de Valera formulated the policy during the second World War it reflected the world as it was then. Retreating to the metaphorical round tower and pulling up the ladder no longer works in the same way.