Neutrality and a changing world

Sir, – The article on Switzerland’s neutrality was a timely and relevant contribution to a grown-up debate on Ireland’s so-called policy of “military neutrality” (Derek Scally, “Neutral but fully armed: Switzerland looks to its own defence”, World, June 21st).

My own view is that neither unarmed neutrality nor Nato membership is appropriate for Ireland.

Armed neutrality, to the extent that it would seriously deter any potential aggressor, is likely beyond our capacity. Finland and Sweden, admittedly in a more vulnerable position than Ireland, have, in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, already come to that conclusion. Iceland, to our northwest, and Portugal, to our south, are Nato members of long standing. Given our location and geopolitical situation, unarmed neutrality would only confirm us as “smug freeloaders” and add absolutely nothing to our influence or reputation. Nato membership, on the other side of the coin, would require Ireland to come to the defence of Turkey if the latter was attacked. That does not make sense to me in the context of Ireland’s position.

Our current policy, which might be viewed as pragmatic, approaches but is not fully freeloader status. We are protected by Nato, but do make a limited contribution to European security, indirectly through our now declining participation in both UN and Nato-led missions, as well as via Partnership for Peace, and EU battle groups. As the Commission on the Defence Forces has pointed out, however, it is substantially underfunded, and cannot be sustained. It isn’t genuine neutrality either, and saying over and over again that it is does not make it so. We need to get honest and get real.

Ken Early: If Ronaldo was Joe Biden then Roberto Martinez was his Jill

---

Who is buying a home in Ireland today? The changing profile of first-time buyers

---

US presidential immunity ruling: ‘With fear for our democracy, I dissent’, supreme court judge says

---

What a gift of a house means for inheritance tax

---

A realistic policy, and one which would be consistent with our geopolitical situation, would be to increase our defence capacity, as per the commission’s recommendations. The Defence Forces should increase their interoperability and co-operation with Nato, and take greater responsibility for peacetime monitoring and patrolling our economic zone, both at sea and in the air. The objective would be to have the capacity to make a contribution, commensurate with our economic strength, to the defence of this island, its seas, airspace, and cyberspace, if necessary, as would likely be the case, in cooperation with Nato, should an “in extremis” situation arise.

Such a policy would be entirely consistent with enhanced participation in peacekeeping and peace enforcing operations in which we have such a proud record since 1958.

As well as being being realistic and honest, it would in my view increase our credibility as interlocutors at both UN and EU levels. No one could accuse us of being smug freeloaders either. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL O’DWYER,

Clogheen,

Cork.