Sir, – Your editorial "The Irish Times view on Irish defence policy: incompatible with Nato" (April 30th) says that the case against Ireland joining Nato is based on "principled commitment to non-proliferation of nuclear arms".
If Nato were dissolved, several central and northern European countries would probably consider acquiring nuclear weapons.
The lesson of what has happened to Ukraine, the country that gave up its nuclear weapons, will not have been lost on them.
Nato’s existence seems to work in favour of the non-proliferation of nuclear arms. – Yours, etc,
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
SÉAMUS MURPHY,
Professor of Philosophy,
Loyola University,
Chicago.
Sir, – I found your editorial challenging. To reshape the working definition of Ireland regarding neutrality as positive internationalism, including non-proliferation, human rights, multilateralism, UN peacekeeping and European solidarity, may be best addressed by drawing down on our proven and highly respected capacity in international peacekeeping.
To retain our positive involvement in the EU but not join Nato, I believe consideration should be given to enhancing our military capacity via numbers, modern equipment – land, sea and air – so that Ireland’s outstanding contribution to and success in complex UN peacekeeping can be expanded and be our unique contribution in our European neighbourhood, in addition to continuing our UN global peacekeeping service. – Yours, etc,
DENIS J HALLIDAY,
(Former UN Assistant
Secretary-General, 1994-98),
Dublin 6.
A chara, – Your editorial on neutrality was disappointing. No meaningful discussion of Irish sovereignty can omit the inconvenient fact that Ireland is currently fully dependent on Nato to protect our state. Alone among small European nations, we have rejected our responsibility to maintain a meaningful defence, and instead rely on the goodwill of the UK (a nuclear-armed, non-EU Nato member with whom we are locked in a bitter diplomatic dispute over Northern Ireland) and other Nato members to protect us when the Russians come prowling.
Your editorial’s self-righteous rejection of Nato membership as “incompatible with our long-standing, principled commitment to non-proliferation of nuclear arms”, while we enjoy the protection of nuclear-armed Nato members, brings to mind several of our most recent hypocrisies, such as the decades we spent congratulating ourselves on our “principled” anti-abortion laws while choosing to ignore the thousands of Irish women who had to travel to the UK to obtain abortions every year.
To this day, we continue to rely on other nations to save us from the consequences of our hypocrisy.
Just as our stance on abortion was not credible then, Ireland’s stance against nuclear weapons is not credible now, and will not be as long as we rely on nuclear-armed nations to protect us.
Ireland’s claims of neutrality are not credible as long as we rely on Nato members to protect us.
Ireland’s demands for support from the rest of the EU over Northern Ireland (“to protect peace”) are not credible if we also demand the right not to support other EU members when their own peace is threatened.
If we are not to be hypocrites before the world – yet again – we must grow up. Either we give the Defence Forces the resources they need to protect our sovereignty without calling in Nato, or we accept that Nato is our protector and join it formally.
We must also decide once and for all to what extent we will protect the peace of other EU members, for that will determine the support we can demand from them in protecting the peace in Northern Ireland.
To loftily proclaim that we are too good for Nato and too neutral to defend fellow EU states, while enjoying the protection of both, is rank hypocrisy. – Is mise,
RÍON NÍ CHRUALAOICH,
Douglas,
Cork.