Sir, – The case is made by Conor Gallagher that the Consultative Forum on International Security aims to be “wide-ranging” (“Security forum aims to be wide-ranging rather than a binary debate on neutrality”, Opinion & Analysis, June 22nd). Perhaps we could share our experience.
Before the details of the forum were published, Innate – An Irish Network for Nonviolent Action Training and Education contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs offering to contribute to the oral sessions on a) nonviolent civilian defence and b) how Irish neutrality could be extended in a way which would impact positively on Irish security. We reiterated that offer when we sent in our (11-page) submission within a couple of days of details being announced. We subsequently received a communication saying “it will not be possible to accommodate an oral presentation as the composition of the panels is largely set”. In other words, it was always too late for us to offer to contribute to the oral sessions.
A forum is defined as a public space for open discussion. This is not the case in relation to this “forum”. – Yours, etc,
ROB FAIRMICHAEL,
Megan Nolan: A conversation with a man in his late 30s made clear the realities of this new era in my dating life
Changing career midlife: ‘At 45 I thought I was finished... But it didn’t even occur to me that I could do anything else’
Restaurant of the year, best value and Michelin predictions: Our reviewer’s top picks of 2024
Women are far more likely to re-gift unwanted presents than men
Coordinator,
Innate,
Belfast.
Sir, – The excellent article by Conor Gallagher should be mandatory reading for some of the hysteria-inducing commentators on the process to date.
This forum is an excellent idea and a timely one given the very brittle nature of international security thus far this century. Specifically, in this regard, and to focus on one agenda item only, the consideration of the continued validity of the triple lock mechanism is long overdue whereby a UN mandate – complete with capacity for Russian interference – is necessary before Irish peacekeeping troops may be deployed abroad. Furthermore, and while any change in the country’s position regarding Nato membership is nowhere on the agenda, it is patently obvious that any proposed movement in Ireland’s historical position on neutrality could only be validated on foot of a national referendum. It would be helpful if some of the usual suspects calmed down and allowed the forum to take place, after which we can pass judgment on the usefulness of the exercise. – Yours, etc,
GERRY PRIZEMAN,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – Further to “Protesters interrupt Micheál Martin’s opening address at security forum” (News, June 22nd), one hopes the lesson Mr Martin has learned from the chaotic opening of the defence policy forum: freedom of speech also means that the Government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorise and which to suppress. – Yours, etc,
JIM O’SULLIVAN,
Rathedmond,
Sligo.
Sir, – Countering Mick Barry TD’s complaint that the Opposition has been excluded from the list of speakers at the forum, Conor Gallagher tells us that “no one from the Government parties is speaking either”. In that case, who was doing that splendid impression of Micheál Martin? – Yours, etc,
MARY BYRNE,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – It is surely ironic that the proponents of neutrality and opponents of military intervention in (apparently) all circumstances should in recent days have shown themselves infinitely more intemperate, intolerant and bellicose than those open to some discussion at least on this issue. – Yours, etc,
ROSEMARY RAUGHTER,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – It is disappointing that elements of Ireland’s political left have felt compelled to derail the forum to discuss Ireland’s future security and defence arrangements. As an Irish citizen abroad, I’ve been horrified by the flippancy with which security issues are discussed and the sense of superiority that comes with this neglect. So important is the issue at hand that our political leaders cannot let them succeed. An open conversion is absolutely necessary. After decades of political neglect, Ireland must develop a coherent defence and security policy to address the multitude of evolving threats in an increasingly unstable international world. – Yours, etc,
GARETH GREGAN,
Brussels,
Belgium.
A chara, – The hecklers who derailed Tánaiste Micheál Martin’s opening remarks at the security forum in Cork show that many engaged in this debate are quite simply uninformed about the issue.
The issue being discussed is not Nato membership, but a revision to the triple-lock mechanism by which the UN Security Council holds a veto over Irish security policy. Russia and China, by virtue of their membership, are thus given carte blanche over our defence policy at a time when Russia has repeatedly stationed naval vessels with surveillance capabilities in our waters and its proxies launch cyber-attacks on the European financial system of which Ireland is a member.
Those waving banners touting “Nato wars – millions dead” at the security forum show a stark ignorance of the reality of Russian brutality in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its wider espionage activities targeting European countries, including Ireland. We can no longer afford to bury our heads in the sand, or continue undermining our security by granting malign actors a veto through the triple-lock mechanism. Despite the wails of uninformed hecklers and wayward presidents, this security forum is essential and must continue without interference. – Yours, etc,
CONOR MacNAMARA,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.