Irish Neutrality

Moriarty

POLL:
Do you want Ireland to continue with its policy of neutrality?
Yes: Ireland should stay as it is - neutral.
No: Ireland should not continue its policy of neutrality.


Its been mentioned in a few threads recently, but i thought it sufficently OT to create a new thread.

I think that we should stop pretending that we are neutral. We have never been truely neutral, instead we have allways been biased to varying degrees towards the side of NATO. I believe its time that we pulled our own weight with regard to international security and the like.

Typedef

That really depends.

If neutrality means that Ireland does not get brow beaten into send troops to places like Afghanistan then yes neutrality should stay.
However if neutrality would keep Ireland out of some other military conflicts like for example policing a cease fire in the Middle East then no.

In principal Ireland should be prepaired to fight the good fight, but in practice Irish troops would probably just get sucked in conflcts that have little to no relevance to Ireland, just like Ireland was sucked into the Great War on promise of a Home Rule parliment which never happened.

True enough a country should always be prepaired to defened it's ideology, but in practice the application of such notions of ideological defence lead to quagmires like Vietnam. I might also point out that Vietnam is now wholely communist and that crimes against humanity were perpitrated by the US army in that conflict.
In every conflict such transgression takes place and while I accept that there are violent people in this world and that people will say Irish people are cowards for not getting militarily involved, the fact is that violence begets violence and violence should only be used in self defence.
That is what neutrality means, that you only use violence in self defence or defence of the weak.

Thus no, it is not necessary for Ireland to abrogate neutrality to take a military role in defending ourselves or other oppressed and suppressed peoples around the world.
In a real world sense Ireland has more political and economic sway then it could ever reasonably have in military terms so if Ireland and Irish people wish to effect substantial changes to this world it is by these means and with these methods it should happen.

Typedef.

Biffa Bacon

I think a lot of the time Irish people talk about neutrality when what they are really concerned with is pacifism. Irish neutrality was only a feature of the Cold War. Now that it's over it doesn't really mean anything, except when people keep referring to it to justify a pacifist stance.

Keeks

Thats a fair statement Biffa. Irelands "neutrality" is mainly to do with if a war broke out we wouldn't take sides (but we do) and the fact we won't start hostile relations with other countries i.e. send in armed forces in an act of agression, such as The Americans in Iraq and afganistan

mike65

Amazing!

Several posts on neutrality that acknoledge the real-politik and not the green/nationalist fantasy we're usually presented with!

Mike.

bonkey

Ireland was and is militarily neutral.

Ireland has never really claimed political neutrality, and yet with every conflict we witness, and every accord or agreement we sign, the same issue comes up time and time again - that Ireland is no longer neutral, and that it should have the guts to admit it.

So, I guess the question should be whether or not we should do away with our military neutrality? Well - why? Ireland gets involved in UN-sanctioned operations - we send soldiers abroad to fight and for causes which are not our own, but only once authorised to do so by the recognised International forum for such matters.

NATO is a cold-war entity. Its existence is outdated and outmoded. To say that we should abandon our neutrality in order to "pay our dues" to them in any way is ridiculous.

As for the UN - we already pay our dues there, and Irish peace keepers are highly respected. Not every "contribution" has to be in the form of war-makers. Sometimes, war-preventers and war-enders are preferable.

Which leaves activities which are not UN-sanctioned. Should we get involved there? Well, personally, I believe no. I would prefer to see Ireland campaiging to encourage all nations to be more UN-obedient, rather than promoting the trend of holding the UN in high regard which beneficial and ignoring it when inconvenient.

jc

Xterminator

I agree with much of what JC has said above.

But you say we should only act in UN sanctioned acts. While i agree with the principle here, you must remember the permanant members of the security council have a veto.

Thus when a flagrant case of abuse comes before them, if one of there allies is involved, a member state will often act in breech of good faith, to protect their political ally.

An example might be the americans protecting Isreal from being sanctioned regardless of their actions.

So because of the imperfections of the UN, it is feasable 'the good fight' might not have the backing from the UN it deserves.

X

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
Ireland was and is militarily neutral.

I dont think so. There are over 100 irish special forces troops (the rangers) in afghanistan at the moment helping out with the sas & the US mountain divisions. Notice how quiet that has been kept, ever after one of the army generals has gone on record that they are there, and more will be sent if needs be.

Originally posted by bonkey
Ireland has never really claimed political neutrality, and yet with every conflict we witness, and every accord or agreement we sign, the same issue comes up time and time again - that Ireland is no longer neutral, and that it should have the guts to admit it.

Ireland have claimed political neutrality a number of times; most noteably during ww2. The fact that we are neither militarily or politically neutral just seems to get brushed aside. If we were pollitically neutral, why would we let nato aircraft use irish airports as refuelling stops during the gulf war, and the current 'war against terrorism'?

Originally posted by bonkey
So, I guess the question should be whether or not we should do away with our military neutrality? Well - why? Ireland gets involved in UN-sanctioned operations - we send soldiers abroad to fight and for causes which are not our own, but only once authorised to do so by the recognised International forum for such matters.

True, Ireland does contribute well to UN peacekeeping forces. I just feel that we should contribute more to international security and pull our own weight. At the moment we are hiding behind a facade of neutrality while at the same time being very pro-NATO. That just does not sit right with me.

Originally posted by bonkey
NATO is a cold-war entity. Its existence is outdated and outmoded. To say that we should abandon our neutrality in order to "pay our dues" to them in any way is ridiculous.

True enough, NATO in its current form is outdated. But the overall idea of countries that have similar ideals keeping a close political & military alliance is sound. Ireland should be a part of it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty

I dont think so. There are over 100 irish special forces troops (the rangers) in afghanistan at the moment helping out with the sas & the US mountain divisions. Notice how quiet that has been kept, ever after one of the army generals has gone on record that they are there, and more will be sent if needs be.

But this is after the Afghanistani "interim government" was set up, and it is this government who approves the presence of foreign soldiers to help it recover its nation.

Ireland were not involved in the deposing of the Taliban, but are now involved in a "peace enforcement" mission in the region, at the behest of the officially recognised local government.

Ireland have claimed political neutrality a number of times; most noteably during ww2. The fact that we are neither militarily or politically neutral just seems to get brushed aside. If we were pollitically neutral, why would we let nato aircraft use irish airports as refuelling stops during the gulf war, and the current 'war against terrorism'?

Ireland were politically neutral in WW2 - there is documented evidence of discussions held with the Germans. We kept our options open at the time. In hindsight, it is considered preferable for us to historically be seen as having been pro-Allies, but the simple fact is that Ireland was quite willing to deal with the Axis as well.

As for the NATO planes - I've heard a lot of conflicting reports about exactly what landed in Ireland when. Can you clear up exactly what we allowed to land, and why it was a non-neutral act?

True enough, NATO in its current form is outdated. But the overall idea of countries that have similar ideals keeping a close political & military alliance is sound. Ireland should be a part of it.

I would have thought that the European Common Defense policy would be a much better medium for us to consider "carrying our weight" in.

At the end of the day, an awful lot of noise about "international security" is made, but when we really look at it, what to we have :

1) Nations with needed resources and friendly governments will be protected
2) Acts of mass destruction and/or genocide will not be tolerated
3) Attacks on the US will not be tolerated.

Now, call me cynical, but I have a problem with calling much of this "international security". There are dozens of civil wars and similar conflicts going on all round the globe, but the only ones the international community are interested in are those which threaten profit, or where the scale is so large that the humanitarian pressure to get involved is too great.

As for the attacks on the US - I dont see that as an International Security issue either. Arabic terrorists have consistently targetted US resources, both in and outside the US. The US have responded. I see neither side as needing or meriting outside help.

If Ireland gets rid of its Neutral status, it should be for some form of common defense, and even then, it should be very clear that common defense is exactly that - defense against a shared threat.

jc

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey


But this is after the Afghanistani "interim government" was set up, and it is this government who approves the presence of foreign soldiers to help it recover its nation.

Ireland were not involved in the deposing of the Taliban, but are now involved in a "peace enforcement" mission in the region, at the behest of the officially recognised local government.

They were sent in during late october / early novemeber. Special Ops troops are not peacekeepers, and are never used as such.

Originally posted by bonkey
Ireland were politically neutral in WW2 - there is documented evidence of discussions held with the Germans. We kept our options open at the time. In hindsight, it is considered preferable for us to historically be seen as having been pro-Allies, but the simple fact is that Ireland was quite willing to deal with the Axis as well.

Allied airmen that came down in irish airspace were sent back to northern ireland. Axis airmen were interned in the curragh. Irish weather stations forwarded all details to allied command; reports from irish weather stations actually delayed D-Day by 1 day, it was meant to start on June 5th.

Originally posted by bonkey

As for the NATO planes - I've heard a lot of conflicting reports about exactly what landed in Ireland when. Can you clear up exactly what we allowed to land, and why it was a non-neutral act?

We allowed transports & heavy bombers to land at shannon. I think it speaks for itself how its a non-neutral act.

Originally posted by bonkey
I would have thought that the European Common Defense policy would be a much better medium for us to consider "carrying our weight" in.

Im not saying NATO or Neutrality, or anything of the sort.. I'd be has happy with ireland joining the rapid reaction force & an EU army as joining nato.

GerK

I have to agree, if Ireland were to join NATO I believe we would become complicit in conflicts where the only goal is to enforce so called 'free trade'. Our soldiers would be sent to kill innocents in third world countries at the behest of US in the interests of multinational corporate profit.

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
I dont think so. There are over 100 irish special forces troops (the rangers) in afghanistan at the moment helping out with the sas & the US mountain divisions. Notice how quiet that has been kept, ever after one of the army generals has gone on record that they are there, and more will be sent if needs be.

At 9/11 we only had 100 or so in the ARW, some of which were deployed overseas, some detailed to security duties (VIPs, etc) and no doubt there would have been many in training / on holiday / blah blah blah. While is was agreed to increase the numbers to deal with possible aircraft hi-jackings etc., the very fact that the reserve force (for said aircraft hi-jackings) is needed makes much less than 100 available to go wandering around Afghanistan.

http://www.military.ie/pr/press_releases_archive_2001.htm has nothing on this and despite some recent correspondance, generals do not go 'on record' about anything, nevermind operational matters. Oh, there is the small matter of needing Dáil approval for sending soldiers overseas.[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Moriarty
True, Ireland does contribute well to UN peacekeeping forces. I just feel that we should contribute more to international security and pull our own weight.

I think we do pull our own weight. There is a difference between pulling your weight and throwing it around.