PESCO; Ireland's military pact

Creol1

sameoldname wrote: »

But seriously, in or out of PESCO this country is neutral and it will remain that way until we the people of this country ever decide to change that.

What is the definition of "neutral" that you are using? We aid the US in its wars through facilitating the use of Shannon Airport.

Moreover, neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution so even if we accept the definition of Ireland as neutral, there is no requirement for the people to be consulted to change this.

Harika

Creol1 wrote: »

What is the definition of "neutral" that you are using? We aid the US in its wars through facilitating the use of Shannon Airport.

Moreover, neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution so even if we accept the definition of Ireland as neutral, there is no requirement for the people to be consulted to change this.

Austria faces a similar dilemma. It was born neutral, after World War 2, on the premise not to join any military formations or tolerate foreign troops on its soil (air). That was demanded by the Soviets. The idea was to create a buffer between Warsaw pact and Nato. Nowadays this idea makes no sense anymore. Still it is written into the constitution.

sameoldname

recedite wrote: »

UN is a global organisation, so participating in UN missions does not affect neutrality.

Neither does participating in PESCO.

sameoldname

Creol1 wrote: »

What is the definition of "neutral" that you are using? We aid the US in its wars through facilitating the use of Shannon Airport.

Moreover, neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution so even if we accept the definition of Ireland as neutral, there is no requirement for the people to be consulted to change this.

I use the term loosely to be fair and only to counteract the general scare mongering that some people like to peddle.

While not mentioned in the constitution we would still have to elect the people who would move us to a position of non-neutrality if it were to ever happen.

recedite

Creol1 wrote: »

..neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution so even if we accept the definition of Ireland as neutral, there is no requirement for the people to be consulted to change this.

We could argue over the "requirement" but IMO any reversal of a longstanding public policy such as this "should" be decided by the people.

sameoldname wrote: »

Neither does participating in PESCO.

If you join a regional alliance, you are by definition, taking sides. The same does not apply to a global organisation.

The USA has tended to make the same arrogant mistake, thinking of itself as a neutral "global policeman" but that is not the case. The USA represents only the USA. PESCO represents only PESCO. The UN represents the whole world.

Creol1

recedite wrote: »

We could argue over the "requirement" but IMO any reversal of a longstanding public policy such as this "should" be decided by the people.

I am extremely supportive of Irish neutrality. I was simply clarifying a point of fact, namely that neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution. I favour a referendum to codify neutrality in the constitution, as this would make breaches of our neutrality legally actionable.

Madagascan

Going to be fun when the German led EU Army go head to head against Russia. And it will happen.
The UK will just sit back.
Only going to be one result from that conflict.

recedite

Creol1 wrote: »

I favour a referendum to codify neutrality in the constitution, as this would make breaches of our neutrality legally actionable.

That is a fair point. Although, in an ideal world, it would not be necessary to make everything legally actionable.
A longstanding pillar of public policy should not be reversed without any public consultation.
A politician in an untenable position should resign.
In a world of chancers though, its true you can't rely 100% on established conventions.

sameoldname

recedite wrote: »

If you join a regional alliance, you are by definition, taking sides. The same does not apply to a global organisation.

A regional alliance (not that anyone would consider PESCO a military alliance) where none of the members have to join any joint military actions that they choose not to is not incompatible with neutrality.

sameoldname

Madagascan wrote: »

Going to be fun when the German led EU Army go head to head against Russia. And it will happen.

Why are the conspiracy theorists always so determined to pick on Germany? Surely an EU army would be lead by France seeing as she has the largest military and the only nuclear power in the EU after Brexit.

Madagascan wrote: »

Only going to be one result from that conflict.

What, the EU will reunify the Ukraine after defeating Russia? That's what you meant right?

Harika

sameoldname wrote: »

Why are the conspiracy theorists always so determined to pick on Germany? Surely an EU army would be lead by France seeing as she has the largest military and the only nuclear power in the EU after Brexit.

It was always intended to combine France's political and military leadership with Germany's economic might. So you would be right by saying that the leadership of the EU army would be more likely France than Germany. But overall this is the big question, and the reason why we won't see an EU army anytime soon, as who will be the leader and who will give directions and orders.

Sierra Oscar

sameoldname wrote: »

Why are the conspiracy theorists always so determined to pick on Germany? Surely an EU army would be lead by France seeing as she has the largest military and the only nuclear power in the EU after Brexit.

Indeed, especially when you consider a German military figure has never held the chairmanship of the European Union Military Committee since it was established in 2000 (France have held ut for two terms), a German politician has never held the position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and a Finnish military officer leads the European Union Military Staff.

Not sure what the obsession with Germany is, they're really not in the driving seat at all when it comes to military co-operation advancements in the EU.

AnGaelach

recedite wrote: »

UN is a global organisation, so participating in UN missions does not affect neutrality.

As opposed to partaking in a UN-sanctioned and EU-led naval operation, which somehow does?

AnGaelach

recedite wrote: »

The USA has tended to make the same arrogant mistake, thinking of itself as a neutral "global policeman" but that is not the case. The USA represents only the USA. PESCO represents only PESCO. The UN represents the whole world.

The views of the 5 Permanent Members of the UNSC.

4068ac1elhodqr

sameoldname wrote: »

Why are the conspiracy theorists always so determined to pick on Germany? Surely an EU army would be lead by France seeing as she has the largest military and the only nuclear power in the EU after Brexit.

Nostradamus and others forsee WW3 starting in France, think Germany's hands would be more or less tied regarding anything offensive, initially.

Up against the great bear, there would be no real winners anywhere, never mind a terrible trio including IRN&NK. Think only the furthest Western parts of Europe are out of reach of Kim these days.

sameoldname

Harika wrote: »

But overall this is the big question, and the reason why we won't see an EU army anytime soon, as who will be the leader and who will give directions and orders.

Well that's the thing isn't it? And it's the same with the whole EU super-state argument. For that to happen a whole bunch of politicians in all 27 nations would have to surrender their power to a different political group. How many politicians do you know who would willingly give up power and hand it to a different group while marginalising themselves?

Also, if France and Germany for example decide to merge their armies, there's no legal method for the EU or Ireland to prevent it. Nor should there be. I don't want any other nation telling us what to do with our army and that in return means we can't tell them what to do with theirs.

Harika

sameoldname wrote: »

Well that's the thing isn't it? And it's the same with the whole EU super-state argument. For that to happen a whole bunch of politicians in all 27 nations would have to surrender their power to a different political group. How many politicians do you know who would willingly give up power and hand it to a different group while marginalising themselves?

Also, if France and Germany for example decide to merge their armies, there's no legal method for the EU or Ireland to prevent it. Nor should there be. I don't want any other nation telling us what to do with our army and that in return means we can't tell them what to do with theirs.

Also the conspiracy theory of EU army basically states that Junckers commands German (+any EU nationality) soldiers to work against Germans (any EU state). Really hard to imagine that this would work somehow.

Manic Moran

Creol1 wrote: »

sameoldname wrote: »

But seriously, in or out of PESCO this country is neutral and it will remain that way until we the people of this country ever decide to change that.

What is the definition of "neutral" that you are using? We aid the US in its wars through facilitating the use of Shannon Airport.

Moreover, neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution so even if we accept the definition of Ireland as neutral, there is no requirement for the people to be consulted to change this.

The definition of neutrality requires providing equal treatment to all parties without prejudice or preference. On any particular year, some thirty militaries use Irish airspace or airports as they move around the globe. The Irish government has placed a series of restrictions and requirements on any aircraft using Ireland for routing. They include requirements such as the aircraft be unarmed, or that it not be in the process of a combat mission. Providing logistical support to belligerent nations in non-combat manner does not, and never has, constituted a violation of the principles of neutrality, as demonstrated by the actions of neutral countries in WW2, particularly the Americas which were a little late to get involved. Even Ireland, which during the Emergency made a distinction between the two: Aircrew captured in Ireland on combat missions were interned in the Curragh, aircrew captured on ferry flights were sent back to their government. So unless someone can show that Ireland did not, in fact, provide the US flag aircraft with a facility equal to that of the published requirements or other nations, the Shannon Stopover should not be used as an indication of a lack of neutrality.
Of course, the policy Ireland has taken is actually "non-alignment". It will still get involved in things at its own will, and will take sides if necessary. Most UN Peace-enforcing missions would fall under this, for example, Ireland's operations against the Katangans in the Congo, or the reputed current agreement with the UK to defend Irish airspace.

padser

Cynthia Shaggy Painkiller wrote: »

Nostradamus and others forsee WW3 starting in France,.

Well if a French Charlatan from the middle ages predicted world war 3 would in France that's pretty much game over right?

Harika

Cynthia Shaggy Painkiller wrote: »

Nostradamus and others forsee WW3 starting in France

The problem with him is that only afterwards prophecies are linked to actual events. Before it doesn't really work. For your entertainment, list his prophecies for 2018, or how other people interpret it, and look at the end of 2018 how much has come true. Spoiler: 0

4068ac1elhodqr

Harika wrote: »

The problem with him is that only afterwards prophecies are linked to actual events. Before it doesn't really work. For your entertainment, list his prophecies for 2018, or how other people interpret it, and look at the end of 2018 how much has come true. Spoiler: 0

Probably about the same accuracy and datelines as the perceived stick throwing capabilities of Kim over in NK (very loose level of accuracy). Or the location of SH's WOMD (non-existent).

AFAIK he didn't offer exact datestamps on events, just an aul bit of spiel that's purposefully difficult to interpret. Not to be taken seriously, but still some level and quantity of detail offered in the many scribbles.

Centurie 3 Quatrain 43 3,43 : Events to come: Invasion of the Italy by the Islamic armies. France intervenes to push back the enemy out of the borders of the peninsula.
Centurie 6 Quatrain 42 6,42 : Invasion of Italy by a set of nations associated with Islam. Advent in France d a great military chief called to dislodge the aggressor from the territories conquered. The counselor of this valiant warrior judged as too prudent.
Centurie 5 Quatrain 84 5,84 : A character identified to the Italian city of Trieste (NE port) takes it out with France in an armed conflict of the future that can correspond to the third world war.
Centurie 2 Quatrain 96 : Iran invades Macedonia and the noon of France. Iran invades Macedonia. France attacked on the south front.
Centurie 5 Quatrain 62 : 5,62: France attacked by the south just as Italy would have been defeated. Spain threatened at the same moment. The control of seas passes into the hands of the Moslem invader.
Centurie 10 Quatrain 60 10,60 : An attack with a weapon of the future, which provokes tsunamis in all the region of the black sea and all the region of the Mediterranean Sea between the Black sea and the coasts of the Northern Italy and the South of France.
Centurie 5 Quatrain 68 5,68 : A war led in central Europe and in France by a military chief designated with the epithet "The great camel". His defeat close to the Alps at the hands of a great French general.

Creol1

Manic Moran wrote: »

The definition of neutrality requires providing equal treatment to all parties without prejudice or preference. On any particular year, some thirty militaries use Irish airspace or airports as they move around the globe.

Neutrality of a state in international law is defined largely by the fifth Hague Convention of 1907. This precludes neutral states from allowing belligerents to use their territory, amongst other requirements.

As such, neutrality comes attached with requirements not to permit assistance to any party on a number of grounds, regardless of whether the belligerent parties are treated equally in cases covered by these grounds.

recedite

AnGaelach wrote: »

As opposed to partaking in a UN-sanctioned and EU-led naval operation, which somehow does?

That's an interesting question. IMO that crosses the line and is not "neutrality".

For example NATO bombed Serbia in 1995 and again in 1999. The first time they got UN approval, and the second time they did not.
IMO NATO was not " a neutral" in either scenario. They were a beligerent in the conflict, whether they managed to get UN approval or not.

Ireland, as a neutral country, did not participate in aggressive actions at the time, but sent personnel on UN peacekeeping duties after the hostilities had ceased.
The UN itself is not in the business of peace enforcement, normally it only does peacekeeping. Which is probably a mistake, but that's another story.

So there is a difference between "UN-sanctioned" and "UN controlled".

I think one of the main goals of PESCO is to give the EU a strike capability similar to that used by Nato in Serbia. At the time there was some criticism both in the USA and in Europe that the USA was having to deal with a mess which was on the EU's doorstep, and the EU was incapable of doing anything itself.

Manic Moran

Creol1 wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

The definition of neutrality requires providing equal treatment to all parties without prejudice or preference. On any particular year, some thirty militaries use Irish airspace or airports as they move around the globe.

Neutrality of a state in international law is defined largely by the fifth Hague Convention of 1907. This precludes neutral states from allowing belligerents to use their territory, amongst other requirements.

As such, neutrality comes attached with requirements not to permit assistance to any party on a number of grounds, regardless of whether the belligerent parties are treated equally in cases covered by these grounds.

With respect, you will find that the rules as regards forces which are not engaged in operations are a little looser than that. Witness, for example, the fact that in 1939, the German ship Altmark refuelled in the US, the British Force Z refuelled in Brazil and Argentina, and the German ship Graf Spee was able to repair and refuel in Uraguay. All forces of belligerent nations in the same operation refuelling in neutral countries. Indeed, the laws of war required that the neutral countries delay the warships of the various belligerents so that there was a 24-hour period between when one side's ship left to when the other's could be (a legalism which the British used to keep Graf Spee in Montevideo by repeatedly dispatching British ships from the port). If the laws of neutrality flatly prohibited, as you suggest, all assistance to the belligerent assets, then there would be no need to write such rules over what happens when both sides are in the same neutral place at the same time.

Creol1

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, you will find that the rules as regards forces which are not engaged in operations are a little looser than that. Witness, for example, the fact that in 1939, the German ship Altmark refuelled in the US, the British Force Z refuelled in Brazil and Argentina, and the German ship Graf Spee was able to repair and refuel in Uraguay. All forces of belligerent nations in the same operation refuelling in neutral countries. Indeed, the laws of war required that the neutral countries delay the warships of the various belligerents so that there was a 24-hour period between when one side's ship left to when the other's could be (a legalism which the British used to keep Graf Spee in Montevideo by repeatedly dispatching British ships from the port). If the laws of neutrality flatly prohibited, as you suggest, all assistance to the belligerent assets, then there would be no need to write such rules over what happens when both sides are in the same neutral place at the same time.

It is difficult to comment on the rules you refer to without having clarity as to which rules you are referring to. To be clear, I am referring to the Fifth and Thirteenth Hague Conventions of 1907: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByTopics.xsp. There certainly are cases where a neutral power may, for example, allow a warship stay at its port provided certain conditions are met and provided the belligerents are treated impartially, but this does not mean that a neutral power can provide any and all assistance to a belligerent power as long as it is applied impartially.

As per my last post, there are absolute requirements that preclude assistance to any belligerent party on a number of grounds, regardless of impartial treatment, e.g., under Article 2 of the Fifth Hague Convention of 1907,


"Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power."

This is absolute and not qualified by impartial treatment of belligerents.

Manic Moran

I'm looking more at the principles of the Convention on Maritime Neutrality, 1928. Granted, maritime, but I don't believe there's any such convention covering aircraft. If you change the below from 'ships' to 'aircraft' (or warships to warplanes), I don't see anything which the Shannon stopover violates. Of course, Ireland isn't a signatory anyway, nor is it officially declared to be neutral, but that's an aside. So is the detail most of the aircraft in question are civilian, privately contracted (and often Irish registered, given that for some reason Ireland is a major leaser of aircraft to private companies).

Items of note:

Art 7: "A neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet." (Ireland has, as a matter of policy, prohibited munitions, armed aircraft, etc anyway).

Art 9: "A neutral Power must apply impartially to the two belligerents the conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions made by it in regard to the admission into its ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters, of belligerent war-ships or of their prizes.
Nevertheless, a neutral Power may forbid a belligerent vessel which has failed to conform to the orders and regulations made by it, or which has violated neutrality, to enter its ports or roadsteads." (Ireland does treat all 30-something nations which have requested to use Irish facilities equally)

Art 16: "When war-ships belonging to both belligerents are present simultaneously in a neutral port or roadstead, a period of not less than twenty-four hours must elapse between the departure of the ship belonging to one belligerent and the departure of the ship belonging to the other.
The order of departure is determined by the order of arrival, unless the ship which arrived first is so circumstanced that an extension of its stay is permissible.
A belligerent war-ship may not leave a neutral port or roadstead until twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchant ship flying the flag of its adversary." (This is the root of the example I gave above of making Uruguay keeping Graf Spee in port by the British use of departures)

Art 19: "Belligerent war-ships may only revictual in neutral ports or roadsteads to bring up their supplies to the peace standard.
Similarly these vessels may only ship sufficient fuel to enable them to reach the nearest port in their own country. They may, on the other hand, fill up their bunkers built to carry fuel, when in neutral countries which have adopted this method of determining the amount of fuel to be supplied." (Also the above example of the German ship refuelling in the US, and British ships refuelling in Brasil and Argentina. Note the use of 'may' for both options. If a neutral party may refuel warships to the max, I see no reason the principle of refuelling aircraft to the max is a violation)

Larbre34

These are points well made, but it shows the whole nature of the discourse in Ireland needs resetting to first principles.

As we know, neutrality has no basis beyond habitual policy in Ireland. The Defence Act (as amended) covers the so-called Triple Lock, but if the Korean War resumed tomorrow under a UN mandate, Irish troops could be deployed on the US/UN side with a cabinet and Dáil vote. I know thats a stretch, but there is no neutrality without belligerents, so what Ireland is, is non-aligned.

Creol1

Larbre34 wrote: »

These are points well made, but it shows the whole nature of the discourse in Ireland needs resetting to first principles.

As we know, neutrality has no basis beyond habitual policy in Ireland. The Defence Act (as amended) covers the so-called Triple Lock, but if the Korean War resumed tomorrow under a UN mandate, Irish troops could be deployed on the US/UN side with a cabinet and Dáil vote. I know thats a stretch, but there is no neutrality without belligerents, so what Ireland is, is non-aligned.

Brian Hayes was interviewed by Ivan Yates yesterday and Mr Yates pressed him on whether he wanted to jettison neutrality, etc. In his response, Brian Hayes consistently used the term "non-aligned" to describe Ireland, rather than neutral.

Larbre34

Creol1 wrote: »

Brian Hayes was interviewed by Ivan Yates yesterday and Mr Yates pressed him on whether he wanted to jettison neutrality, etc. In his response, Brian Hayes consistently used the term "non-aligned" to describe Ireland, rather than neutral.

I don't agree with FG on much, and generally even less with Brian Hayes, but I do agree on their more pragmatic policies around Ireland, the EU and defence. It will be an important aspect of our future relationship at the heart of the EU.

recedite

Creol1 wrote: »

Brian Hayes consistently used the term "non-aligned" to describe Ireland, rather than neutral.

I think its pretty obvious that we are now "aligned" with PESCO.

Larbre34 wrote: »

if the Korean War resumed tomorrow under a UN mandate, Irish troops could be deployed on the US/UN side with a cabinet and D vote. I know thats a stretch, but there is no neutrality without belligerents, so what Ireland is, is non-aligned.

I'm not really seeing a difference between "non aligned" and "neutral". There is a difference between these and "pacifist" alright.
If we joined a US/South Korea coalition (whether or not it had a UN mandate) we would no longer be neutral or non-aligned in that particular action; we would become a belligerent.
However we would still be neutral towards any other potential situations (apart from the new PESCO alignment, that is)

"Proper" UN missions generally happen post-conflict, when the belligerents have left the scene. UN missions are generally peacekeeping rather than peace enforcement. These are the ones that Ireland has participated in before, such as Lebanon.

DanMurphy

The belligerents were very much 'on the scene' in Lebanon during the UNIFIL tenure. Some are still there, in one form or another!
The IDF, DFF, PLO (11 Factions) AMAL Militia, Hezbollah were all present during my trips to the place.
UNIFIL was most definitely NOT 'post conflict!'
The CHAD Missions the Irish served with were Peace Enforcement.
The passage of time however, and if it's said often enough without contradiction, might 'water down' our involvement in either conflict.
I suggest a little research on the subject?

recedite

DanMurphy wrote: »

The belligerents were very much 'on the scene' in Lebanon during the UNIFIL tenure. Some are still there, in one form or another!
The IDF, DFF, PLO (11 Factions) AMAL Militia, Hezbollah were all present during my trips to the place.
UNIFIL was most definitely NOT 'post conflict!'

Well maybe 'left the scene' was a poor choice of words, but what I mean is that UNIFIL had no mandate to "break up" any war between Israelis and Hezbollah, or to get involved in it any way. The role was to try to provide security and maintain peace after major hostilities had ceased, and the belligerents had separated from each other.

DanMurphy wrote: »

The CHAD Missions the Irish served with were Peace Enforcement.
The passage of time however, and if it's said often enough without contradiction, might 'water down' our involvement in either conflict.
I suggest a little research on the subject?

The Chad mission was a bit odd in that it was mainly the French operating there. Firstly they were acting as belligerents, as part of a longstanding post-colonial bilateral deal to support the govt. there.

Secondly the French had other troops acting as part of an EU force which they had organised. This EUFOR mission was a kind of precursor to future PESCO missions and it did have a "peace enforcement" sort of mandate. For whatever reaons, Ireland and Poland were keen to chip in as good Europeans, but most EU countries gave little or no support. UK and Germany sent their apologies; too busy with other things.

Thirdly the French had troops as part of the UN mission (MINURCAT) which was only peacekeeping. Protection of aid workers and the like.

Nowadays the French have US special forces helping with their operations there.

If anything this highlights the confusion that arises when there are different (but overlapping) missions. The French were at the same time full belligerents in the conflict, part of "an EU mission" fronted by an Irishman, and part of a UN peacekeeping mission.