Where do Irelands Loyalitys lie.

Zambia

Ok this came up in the History Forum and I said I would start a thread on it as a sideline.

In short I would be against Neutrality for any nation including Ireland. I base my agrument on the simple level of if I agree to work with my neighbour or another country I would expect them to help me out in times of trouble.

In short I believe its the same as standing by while your mate gets a kicking on a night out. On a global scale I understand its not as simple but the principle is the same as far as I can see.

Ireland is a neutral country and has been since 1937. Nice timing ...

I see neutrality today as it always has been as a dead horse IMHO. Not that I want Ireland to send troops anywhere at present but at least aknowledge the fact that we know where our loyalities lie. In light of defensive arrangements we are in the EU the EU aknowledges its defense is handled by NATO.

In the instance of lets say a Russian* backed invasion spreading over Europe would Ireland *assist its European neighbours or stand behind its neutrality while Europe burns? If Ireland did respond to such an attack then its not in essence neutral.

*By assist I mean send troops in that eventuality.
*By Russian I just need an example , Russian military might nor there will to do such a thing are not debate features.

Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Valera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU#Common_Foreign_.26_Security_Policy

Judt

Ireland's neutrality is a cop-out. We even admit as much in our own history books, stating that our neutrality during WW2 was "biased" towards the allies.

Russia is a good example - now this is a scenario I do not believe will happen, but it's one litmus test for Irish neutrality. Russia is getting her wings back and is having a go at the Baltic states, old Soviet clients which are now our EU allies and partners. Say if Russia took military action against one or all of these three states... Would Ireland step back and do nothing substantive? By the terms of our neutrality we couldn't even tacitly endorse other EU nations taking military or economic action against Russia.

Example reversed: Ireland is invaded by a foreign power. What's the first thing we do? Look about for our European and American buddies to come bomb the hell out of them.

Neutrality doesn't work if you've one foot in the door and want to have your cake and eat it. It's not like non-neutral nations are fighting WW2 repeats every other day of the week, but then other neutral nations don't do the "preferential neutrality" that we do. Nor does the People's Republic of China's veto on the UN security council have more power over Irish foreign policy than the Irish people.

Mick86

Oooooh, you can't go slagging off Neutrality. That's very bold.

Anyway, we cannot justify claiming we are neutral. It's not mentioned in the Constitution. We did not exercise it properly in WW2 and we do not take the steps to provide for the defence of that neutrality as required by the Hague convention.

homah_7ft

This is real pie in the sky stuff. It doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things whether Ireland is neutral or not. We have what - eight and a half thousand in our army? In my opinion we should do what every other country in the world has done down through history and that is whatever is expedient to the current situation.

brianthebard

Why do you say 1937 zambie? It was a war time policy, for the war. It was a way of avoiding possible conflict within Ireland over who to support or flare ups of nationalist opportunism. Personally I have no problem with the idea of Irish neutrality and would like to see it enforced as a constitutional policy rather than a sort of word of mouth, easily overturned (see Shannon) policy.

Zambia

homah_7ft wrote:

This is real pie in the sky stuff. It doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things whether Ireland is neutral or not. We have what - eight and a half thousand in our army? In my opinion we should do what every other country in the world has done down through history and that is whatever is expedient to the current situation.

you mean always take the easy way out

homah_7ft

Zambia232 wrote:

you mean always take the easy way out

Yep exactly. The easiest way out that's possible.

biko

Isn't the thought behind Irish neutrality to not get mixed up in dodgy wars, like the current war in Iraq that Blair signed up for? Still looking for WMD are they?

Irish Army should only be deployed in case of an attack on Ireland itself, or perhaps a direct attack on UK soil. They are neighbours after all and if they fall Ireland fall too.

Other than that only peace keeping missions for the UN.

brianthebard

Zambia232 wrote:

you mean always take the easy way out

Hmm, so the choices are ;
War, economic political and social chaos, unnecessary deaths and possible strikes on civilians, OR

Peace, no deaths from war, less upheaval.

Gosh you're right taking the easy way out is easy!

Zambia

homah_7ft wrote:

Yep exactly. The easiest way out that's possible.

Fair enough I see your piont but in light of the question if Europe/The EU was invaded would you see Ireland standing behind Neutrality while Europe fought.

philologos

Irelands neutrality is non-existant in relation to US forces in Shannon. We are clearly a country that backs the West at every opportunity. I don't agree with that and I think we should stay neutral, or alternatively make up our own minds instead of following the yanks like sheep.

Zambia

biko wrote:

Irish Army should only be deployed in case of an attack on Ireland itself, or perhaps a direct attack on UK soil. They are neighbours after all and if they fall Ireland fall too.

By that rational your in a defensive alliance with the UK.

homah_7ft

Zambia232 wrote:

Fair enough I see your piont but in light of the question if Europe/The EU was invaded would you see Ireland standing behind Neutrality while Europe fought.

It would again depend where our interests lay at the time. I can see situations where a military option would be the best one. As the old phrase goes, vital national interests.

Erin Go Brath

Jakkass wrote:

Irelands neutrality is non-existant in relation to US forces in Shannon. We are clearly a country that backs the West at every opportunity. I don't agree with that and I think we should stay neutral, or alternatively make up our own minds instead of following the yanks like sheep.

Alas, its true! Our neutrality doesn't seem to be worth the paper its written on these days. We need a strong leader who stands up for our neutrality, but instead we've Bertie

OS119

homah_7ft wrote:

We have what - eight and a half thousand in our army? In my opinion we should do what every other country in the world has done down through history and that is whatever is expedient to the current situation.

excpediancy is admirable, indeed its the only way to conduct oneself. doing something that isn't expediant is called foolishness.

that aside, a much more interesting question - a societal, philosophical one - is: do you have an Army of only 8,500 troops because you're neutral, or are you neutral because you only have a Army of 8,500 troops?

neutrality is a sham in current circumstances, you are a voting member of - and contributor to - the worlds largest economic and political block, a block that has 19 multi-national Battle-Groups, a block that has very close military and political ties with the 'real' military flip-side of its coin, the most powerful - and adventurous - military organisation on the face of the earth, and a block that is increasingly throwing its military, political and economic might around - Lebanon under French and Italian leadership and in the DR Congo under German leadership.

additionally Ireland has taken part in Three NATO-led operations, I/SFOR in Bosnia, KFOR in Kosovo and ISAF in Afghanistan.

its air defence is provided - on an ad hoc basis - by one of the most expeditionary militaries in the world.

belonging to the EU in its incarnation as a political bloc and participating in its military expeditions, as well as NATO ones even further affield, means that Ireland isn't neutral - and nor has it been for a very long time.

TBH, standing up for something - even if its something very boring like humanity, rule of law etc.. - means you aren't really neutral, you just make exuses (like the one at the top of this post) for non-involvement.

Judt

It's not just about your troops. Taking an economic embargo against a country is an act of war. We're just being cowardly and letting other countries do the jobs whilst we sit back and expect that they'd help us if we needed it.

homah_7ft

OS119 wrote:

excpediancy is admirable, indeed its the only way to conduct oneself. doing something that isn't expediant is called foolishness.

that aside, a much more interesting question - a societal, philosophical one - is: do you have an Army of only 8,500 troops because you're neutral, or are you neutral because you only have a Army of 8,500 troops?

neutrality is a sham in current circumstances, you are a voting member of - and contributor to - the worlds largest economic and political block, a block that has 19 multi-national Battle-Groups, a block that has very close military and political ties with the 'real' military flip-side of its coin, the most powerful - and adventurous - military organisation on the face of the earth, and a block that is increasingly throwing its military, political and economic might around - Lebanon under French and Italian leadership and in the DR Congo under German leadership.

additionally Ireland has taken part in Three NATO-led operations, I/SFOR in Bosnia, KFOR in Kosovo and ISAF in Afghanistan.

its air defence is provided - on an ad hoc basis - by one of the most expeditionary militaries in the world.

belonging to the EU in its incarnation as a political bloc and participating in its military expeditions, as well as NATO ones even further affield, means that Ireland isn't neutral - and nor has it been for a very long time.

TBH, standing up for something - even if its something very boring like humanity, rule of law etc.. - means you aren't really neutral, you just make exuses (like the one at the top of this post) for non-involvement.

Did I say we were neutral? All I'm saying is you need to take the easy way out. If some other country is willing to pay for our protection I say well and good. I'd rather not pay higher tax to pay for a larger army if you don't mind!

bonkey

Zambia232 wrote:

In short I believe its the same as standing by while your mate gets a kicking on a night out. On a global scale I understand its not as simple but the principle is the same as far as I can see.

Not entirely.

On a global scale, its the equivalent of one of your mates giving another of your mates a kicking....or two people you know but consider neither to be mates giving each other a kicking.

Consider...

Switzerland is neutral. Switzerland has troops sitting in the DMZ between North and South Korea without weapons acting as observers. If war breaks out, which one of these two is "the mate" in your scenario?

Proper neutrality means not taking sides. Unlike your mate at the nightclub, there are no "strangers" on the world stage. They're all "acquaintences" at the least.

Mick86

biko wrote:

Isn't the thought behind Irish neutrality to not get mixed up in dodgy wars, like the current war in Iraq that Blair signed up for? Still looking for WMD are they?

Irish Army should only be deployed in case of an attack on Ireland itself, or perhaps a direct attack on UK soil. They are neighbours after all and if they fall Ireland fall too.

We're either neutral or we're not.

brianthebard wrote:

Hmm, so the choices are ;
War, economic political and social chaos, unnecessary deaths and possible strikes on civilians, OR

Peace, no deaths from war, less upheaval.

Gosh you're right taking the easy way out is easy!

Simplistic nonsense. You know quite well that wars will always happen whether with Ireland's participation or not.

Jakkass wrote:

Irelands neutrality is non-existant in relation to US forces in Shannon. We are clearly a country that backs the West at every opportunity. I don't agree with that and I think we should stay neutral, or alternatively make up our own minds instead of following the yanks like sheep.

You'd think that given our geographic location and history we'd back somebody else for a change. Our economy is entirely dependent on Uncle Sam and to a lesser extent the EU. It takes the decision-making process out of picking a side.

Zambia

Bonkey in the case where both are your mates you should have the mind decide who is right and step in.

While seeing where your coming from.

By advocating neutrality you state from the outset that no matter what occurs you will in no way defend your friends or collegues, from each other or any one outside your circle either.

philologos

In the Doha Debates on BBC World recently about whether or not the Israeli lobby are stifling the debate on the Israel- Palestine conflict, Andrew Cockburn made a very good point on how Britain or any other country in the EU's opinion is largely irrelevant as they all tend to follow the overall judgement of the US.
Of course it affects various topics as well as the Israeli lobby in the USA, but they do have dominance over what can or cannot be said politically about certain things.

Zambia

brianthebard wrote:

Hmm, so the choices are ;
War, economic political and social chaos, unnecessary deaths and possible strikes on civilians, OR

Peace, no deaths from war, less upheaval.

Gosh you're right taking the easy way out is easy!

If Ireland where attacked it would of course expect some country to assist and incur the very same difficult circumstances. Well I would like to think someone would.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Bonkey in the case where both are your mates you should have the mind decide who is right and step in.

They're not mates. They are partners who own the firm in which you work so you cannot afford to piss them off.

Zambia232 wrote:

By advocating neutrality you state from the outset that no matter what occurs you will in no way defend your friends or collegues, from each other or any one outside your circle either.

I'm not advocating neutrality. I merely pointed out that we cannot be neutral whilst declaring that we will assist Britain.

I'm in favour of developing an EU Alliance/Defence Force with full Irish participation to defend the EU.

Zambia

Never thought you where an advocate of neutrality I think bonkey was hence the post was more directed at him.

I would actually be in favour of a alliance of that nature.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Never thought you where an advocate of neutrality I think bonkey was hence the post was more directed at him.

I assumed you were calling me bonkey.:D I suppose I should read usernames.

brianthebard

Zambia232 wrote:

If Ireland where attacked it would of course expect some country to assist and incur the very same difficult circumstances. Well I would like to think someone would.

How about instead of making up situations we use the one we have right now as the example? Why should Ireland not continue to follow a policy of neutrality? What benefit is available to the nation by not doing so?

Judt

brianthebard wrote:

How about instead of making up situations we use the one we have right now as the example? Why should Ireland not continue to follow a policy of neutrality? What benefit is available to the nation by not doing so?

Ahem. We're civilised human beings who can, for example, help stop genocide in countries like the former Yugoslavia without permission from the Chinese veto.

On a practical level (everything is about practicalities...) joining an organisation such as NATO, or a European Union defence pact, would give us access to kit and funding for our naval service, which has eight ships to do a job that needs twice as many.

wes

Our neutrality is a bit of a joke at this point. We should side with the EU in anyways. Join the common defense initiative. Being part of the EU makes it next to impossible to be neutral.

Mick86

brianthebard wrote:

....Why should Ireland not continue to follow a policy of neutrality?

We cannot continue to follow a policy that we haven't followed in the past. We might give lip service to neutrality and pat ourselves on the back about being great peace lovers (while turning a blind eye to a terorist army on our territory) and wonderful peace makers (we're not really). In reality what we have done is decided that we can exist under the protection of NATO without contributing. Likewise we have benefitted economically from the EU for 30 years while disdaining to contribute in any manner, not least by offering to defend our benefactors.

brianthebard wrote:

What benefit is available to the nation by not doing so?

National pride.

Judt wrote:

Ahem. We're civilised human beings who can, for example, help stop genocide in countries like the former Yugoslavia without permission from the Chinese veto.

That situation is of our own making and can be as quickly unmade.

Judt wrote:

On a practical level (everything is about practicalities...) joining an organisation such as NATO, or a European Union defence pact, would give us access to kit and funding for our naval service, which has eight ships to do a job that needs twice as many.

I don't think NATO funds it's members DFs. Open to correction here.

luckat

wes wrote:

Our neutrality is a bit of a joke at this point. We should side with the EU in anyways. Join the common defense initiative. Being part of the EU makes it next to impossible to be neutral.

I wouldn't consider Ireland's neutrality a joke in the least.

Neutrality means we *choose* what wars we get involved in, we don't *automatically* side with any particular coterie.

I would hope that Ireland's loyalties lie with justice, mediated through good sense and negotiation.

wes

luckat wrote:

I wouldn't consider Ireland's neutrality a joke in the least.

Neutrality means we *choose* what wars we get involved in, we don't *automatically* side with any particular coterie.

I would hope that Ireland's loyalties lie with justice, mediated through good sense and negotiation.

I don't want Ireland to be getting involved with world wide misadventures either. Having said that our claims to neutrality are spurious at best. We don't seem to be all that bothered with being actually a 100% neutral. So we may as well join the EU common defense pact. Which as far as these things go isn't the worst thing in the world.

I would love if Ireland was properly neutral. I simply don't see this happening. I think the current situation of so called neutrality make liars of our nation.