The cosseting of Irish citizens on security, defence and false neutrality truths have come back to haunt the Government and have led directly to the current Triple Lock debate debacle, writes Independent Senator Gerard Craughwell, a member of the Joint Committee on Defence and National Security.
Ireland is not now and never has been a neutral country. My fervent wish, a wish that I know to be widely shared by Irish citizens who truly understand the responsibilities of states that declare neutrality, is for Ireland, for the first time since independence, to become a truthful, honourable and militarily resourced neutral state as required by Customary International Law, a law that is codified in the Hague Conventions of 1907. Thus, Falsehood One.
Customary International Law’s byword is “states practice over time”. It’s astonishing that our politicians, commentators, and citizens continue to insist that Ireland should not abide by this Customary International Law requirement. In fact, the majority of those still suggesting that Ireland is a neutral state most probably are unaware of Hague 1907.
While Hague 1907 predates Ireland’s independence, it’s a brave Irish Government Minister, Civil Service Mandarin or Irish diplomat who might suggest that Hague 1907 should not be complied with.
Austria and Switzerland, the currently only remaining European neutral states, are in full compliance with Hague 1907, while Finland and Sweden, neutral states until 2023/2024 respectively, fully complied with neutral states obligations.
Falsehood Two is a more recent invention by Government, politicians, commentators and an increasingly naïve ‘the king has no clothes”, citizenry. This falsehood brazenly suggests that Ireland is concurrently Militarily Neutral but not Politically Neutral. No such sub-division of neutrality exists in international law; a state is either neutral or it is not.
It’s an Irish ‘makey-upey’ invention, the tragedy of which is that it has remained unchallenged in any political, academic or journalistic commentary. It’s shallow posturing that is internationally embarrassing. But on these issues, Ireland has long been devoid of shame. Our international colleagues just privately roll their eyes at this Irish fable.
Falsehoods One and Two plus now, Ireland is Non-Aligned!: A subset of Falsehood One and Falsehood Two, or an expansion of either, or both, is the throwing in for good measure that Ireland’s international positioning is one of being Non-Aligned. The Non-Aligned Movement, in existence since the 1950s, is some 120 UN Member State strong. Ireland is not now or never has been non-aligned in the internationally accepted meaning of the word.
To make matters worse, Ireland’s senior government leaders not alone suggest this additional falsehood publicly, and in Dáil debates, but use neutrality and non-aligned interchangeably, often in the same sentence. Neutrality and Non-Aligned are polar opposite positions in international relations. It’s astounding that our ministerial advisers and Irish diplomats continue with silence on this.
A well established, oft cited anecdote, on Ireland and non-alignment is worth repeating. Noel Dorr, much-admired retired Irish diplomat was a junior posted to the UN Irish Delegation when the late Garrett Fitzgerald was Ireland’s Foreign Minister during the 1973-77 coalition government. It was the occasion of the annual September General Assembly and Minister Fitzgerald was in New York for the Assembly.
One day, along a corridor at UN Headquarters, Fitzgerald and Dorr encountered the wily and long-standing Foreign Minister of the then Soviet Union, Mr. Andrei Gromyko and his delegation.
The two groups chatted, and then Gromyko confronted Fitzgerald; thus, “I don’t understand you Irish, you say you are non-aligned, yet you are not aligned with the non-aligned”. How true and apt.
At the recent first meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Defence and National Security, the nonsense of Ireland being both neutral and non-aligned was again uttered. It’s despairing to see such a lack of basic knowledge by those purporting to be engaged in such an urgent and import issue as the safety and security of the State.
