Sir, – In their excellent account of the purposeful flexibility of Irish neutrality (our "traditional policy of military neutrality" as successive Governments have carefully called it), Pat Leahy and Conor Gallagher correctly say that future debate will be dominated less by the question of Nato membership than by where Ireland fits within a developing EU security and defence framework ("The ground has shifted and Ireland's approach to military defence will come under scrutiny as never before", Analysis, March 4th).
The operational, financial, political and constitutional implications could be far-reaching. A referendum on EU treaty change might well be required in the coming years. One way or another, those of us who support full Irish participation in a stronger EU will need to prepare for a robust discussion.
However, there are two changes which could be made more quickly, without constitutional or treaty change. Russia’s appalling and criminal actions compellingly make the case for both.
First, it is time to abolish the legislative “triple-lock” requirement that the deployment of more than 12 members of the Defence Forces in an international peace support operation requires a UN mandate. It has never made sense that a Government decision endorsed by the Dáil can be stymied by a veto in the Security Council.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
The five permanent members (P5), including Russia, but not only Russia, will never collectively agree to reform or abolish the veto. Conversely and illogically, a unanimous EU decision – over which we do have a veto – is not sufficient to authorise Irish participation.
The inability of the Security Council to act during the current crisis is the most recent of a string of failures on the most important threats to international peace and security.
This is not to say that it cannot do valuable work on issues not directly threatening the interests of the P5. And of course a UN mandate would always be desirable. But we must not shackle ourselves so unbreakably.
Second, the “solidarity clause” of the Treaty on European Union states that “if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power.”
Contrary to what your editorial (March 5th) says, Ireland is indeed bound by this obligation (as well as being a potential beneficiary).
But it is qualified both in the treaty and in the guarantees given to us before the second Lisbon referendum effectively such as to exempt us from actually being required to offer military assistance, as opposed to other types of aid. It is very likely that any military assistance we could give in such a situation would be negligible.
But if it might in fact be potentially useful to a fellow EU member under attack – let us say Estonia, for example – surely it would be unconscionable for us not to offer it. We should accept the full implications of the principle of EU solidarity and say so explicitly.
Our wiggle room was skilfully negotiated at the time, but we should forswear the use of it. – Yours, etc,
RORY MONTGOMERY,
(former Permanent
Representative to the EU
and Second Secretary
General at the Departments of the Taoiseach and
Foreign Affairs),
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Our Army possesses ordnance that realistically we are never going to use in our defence. We should supply this ordnance to the people of Ukraine, without further delay, to support them in their hour of need.
Our neutrality remains in place as we will not be part of any military alliance nor will we be committing troops to the conflict. This is the very essence of neutrality.
The notion that we can cling to a version of neutrality that would permit the supply of fuel for tanks, in order to resist the invasion, but not the shells for the tanks is a distinction devoid of merit. – Yours, etc,
PAUL WALSH,
Skerries,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – It is 20 years since the then-government issued us with iodine pills. Maybe it is now time to issue them again? – Yours, etc,
EUGENE GATH,
Pallaskenry,
Limerick.
Sir, – The Russian ambassador has complained in an interview on Russian TV that protesters outside the Russian Embassy in Dublin were aggressive and intimidating.
Perhaps he could apply for a transfer to Ukraine. – Yours, etc,
J BRADY,
Kilmacud,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – The ever-expanding list of sanctions being imposed on Russia will have a significant impact on its economy. In reality, while some impact of these sanctions will be immediate, much of it will be more medium to long-term in nature.
While the EU is presenting a near-united front in delivering these sanctions, why is this new-found approach continuing to avoid deploying the one sanction which would have the biggest impact?
Russia is hugely dependant on energy exports to underpin its economy and generate foreign currency income.
This is the same income that both fuels Putin’s war machine and underpins the billions siphoned off by him and his oligarch acolytes.
The EU should now stop buying Russian energy, not, as is currently the case, based on individual market decisions, but rather on a coordinated pan-European basis.
Clearly, any decision by the EU to cease the purchase of Russian energy will have an immediate negative impact, both financially and practically on European economies. Europe sources some 40 per cent of its energy needs from Russia and this would need to be replaced rapidly with alternative supplies at likely increased cost.
While this would not be straightforward, neither is it unachieveable. The EU was able to support member economies financially throughout the Covid crisis and can do so again to facilitate such a move away from a dependency on Russian energy.
Any other outcome is unacceptable and would be tantamount to the EU burning Russian oil, gas and diesel for the lifestyle comfort of its citizens while Putin burns Ukrainian cities and their inhabitants for his megalomaniac ends. – Yours, etc,
GERRY PRIZEMAN,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.