Why is Ireland Neutral?

paddymee

Please discuss. I have my own ideas, but would rather others start before I "bias" the discussion.

Or don't.

Paddy

gandalf

Well post your own point of view up and we will use that as a starting point for the discussion.

You know the rules Paddy no one line threads without your point of view expressed :rolleyes:

Gandalf.

paddymee

Well I really wanted to see what other peoples views were before I had people rip mine apart.

I wanted to see what the moral ground people stand upon to claim neutrality when history has shown that we have rode on the back of others, ie the cold war and WW2, or in fact not even pretended to be neutral, again WW2 and POWs.

We have always claimed to be neutral. But why? What is the reason?

We are a peace loving people? Hardly, our history and current State is built on violence. Thousands of Irish fought and died in both World Wars, so we had no problem sending men to war (albeit in an unofficial way).

Is it because that's the way it is?

Any other reasons?

Is that a good enough way to start the discussion. I want to see what others think, not just refute my ideas.

Paddy

Jimi-Spandex

Irish neutrality, is a tough thing to define. My 3rd yr. history teacher put it best when he described it as a "benevolent neutrality". It is best described in oxymoronic contradictory terms.

Irish Neutrality was really borne out of our 1937 constitution*, consider the political situation in Europe at the time DeValera wrote it(Hitler, Stalin etc.). it is easy to see why its in our constitution. We, as a poor agricultural country trying to establish itself as a soverign state, did not need nor want an invading force, and neutrality was the easiest way to do this.

While our actual neutrality during WW2 is questionable to say the least, one thing is true, we did send our condolences to Germany on Hitler's death.

On to modern "neutrality". If Eire was a neutral state we could not viably justify membership of the European Union, in particuar not the RRF's which will be set up. The world of today is much different from 70/80 years ago, economic pressure holds much more sway nowadays, what with our partial reliance on MNC's for employment and investment.

That said, while I agree that Neutrality was right for us in the late 30s early 40s, now its persistence doesn't make political or economic sense. Morally is a different question.


*I must point out that while the word neutral is never used in our constitution, the difficulty posed legally by Art.28 s.3 subs.1 in the declaration of war espouses this ethos

"War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann."

hallelujajordan

I'm not sure that Irish neutrality means anything at all. We sit and vote on the UN security council and if the UN declare war on Iraq we will be part of that declaration. The way I see it neutrality is just a nice way of not having to be allied to other countries . . . maintaining control of ones own destiny. The alternative to neutrality would probably be membership of NATO and I certainly don't want to see that happen. We still have the option of becoming involved in peacekeeping missions around the world.

Aren't there enough countries out there ready to go to war without Ireland adding to that !

bertiebowl

Being neutral was a great way to save loads of dosh that we would've had to spend on an army.

Plus it was Dev's way of creating a separate Irish identity relative to our (then) dominant neighbour Britain.

MDR

don't think we have ever been neutral in our history, and I don't think anyone has ever thanked us for our supposed neutrality (perhaps a little strong, the lebanese, the congo etc all thank us sure, but the people really in need, the Kosvon Albanians etc) ?

Rolo Tomasi

Yeah we still do like to consider ourselves neutral for , I think, two reasons.

1. The Defense Forces is really a token gesture, we're a soverign state so we have an army, navy and air corp. These all provide very important functions in Ireland and aborad such as patroling Irish shores and policing in Kosovo but when compared to the rest of Europe I imagine its pretty poorly equipped.(Which I agree with, we dont need to spends billions on something we will never use.) The chances of Ireland repelling an invading force, well put in this way I wouldn't be hanging around to see how things work out.

2. I believe it ties with with the world's image of Ireland. A land of saints and scholar's. "Sure we wouldn't hurt a fly, we're neutral".

benevolent neutrality

is a good way to put it. The way it was explained to me was that we practice "passive neutrality" whereas a nation like Finalnd practices "active neutrality"

seamus

I think Jimi has the right idea here. At the time of writing of the constitution, Ireland had neither the finances or the population to build and maintain an army to defend against any invading force, so neutrality made sense.

On top of that, given the state of technology at the time, the only real threat could come from Britain, which couldn't happen unless someone successfully invaded the UK, and if somone could topple the mighty 'British Empire', what chance did we have?

IMO, an extremely good job was done of maintaining our neutral status during WWII. We were on a tightrope in that we had to keep ourselves friendly with both sides, without appearing 'too' friendly. American planes were allowed refuel at shannon, and POW's were kept in Ireland in order to please the allies. On the other hand, since we weren't at war, they weren't POW's, rather Guests of the State, and were treated very well, keeping Germany happy.

Neutrality is obviously a lot more complicated nowadays, but IMO, if we can avoid getting directly involved in any conflict (and avoid supporting any wars, e.g. GWB's glory crusade), that is about as close as we can get to the definition of actual nuetrality.

ObeyGiant

We're lovers, not fighters.

Saruman

If we were not neutral what could we do??? Our Navy has a few ships with some guns barely good enough to shoot a flock of geese, our air corps is practically non existant other than search and rescue choppers etc..

We have an ok ground army that does well in peace missions but nothing on the scale that could make any difference in a conflict.
However we are a good military target for someone who wanted to have a launching point against Britain or to divde Europe and cut off the US and Europe by holding the seas and air space using Ireland as a base... Hitler could have done it but did not think us important enough to be arsed with!

Unlikely as it is, it is possible so why paint a target on us?

Elmo

Why is anyone Neutral?

By the way I agree with Neutrality.

Ireland should go foward and promote peace and not bomb innosent people who don't agree with what we think.

As for our History in regards Peace (By which i mean NI)

1. The British do not promote peace.
2. The British Force innocent people to agree with them.
3. The Civil Right abuse of the establishment in NI.


At the moment its a war within Unionism which tears this country apart.

As regards NATO and the cold war. While I am not in favour of Communism it does not give me the right to tell other countries how to run their country. How ever I agree with democracy and if the people want Communism fine but only in a democracy, Leaders like stalin were wrong to be aloud to run their country and abuse civil liberties in the way in which they did. But then The Civil rights abuses in The USA was not much better and the same can be said of the British Empire.

De Rebel

Not sure about the benevolent bit. More like cronyism and keeping one foot in each camp.

Despite his speechifying Dev (the long fellow as opposed to The All_Powerful_One) could be as unprincipled and pragmatic as the next political huckster. He was on safe ground in 1939-1945 knowing that Britain had too much on its plate elsewhere to even consider invading, and anyway it had most of what it needed in the six counties. And apart altogether from it being a logistical nightmare, Germany needed another front like a hole in the head, especially one that had only air and sea corridor access. Dev was neutral mainly because there was nothing in it for us. And he had the knowledge that if the Axis ever did reach our shores (a) it could only have happened after the demise of the Britain or (b) the British would have been in here so fast to help us safeguard their Western Flank.

That explains 1939-1945. The intervening years are explained by that great Irish couldn’t give a sh1t attitude that helps us as a nation avoid making anything like a principled decision. The usual pious bull.

Given that this little island has about 10 runways which would be potentially useful as transit bases or as refuelling stops, if there ever were another conventional war centred on the North Atlantic we would pretty soon see just how long our much prized neutrality would last.

Our scared neutrality is up there with a lot of other holy cows. The fact that its lasting longer than most of the others is tribute to its irrelevance in the real world.


and before I am trounced for trolling, i'm not - these are considered views

mike65

Cost benefit analysis said neutrality post WW2 would be good for Ireland after all if NATO spends the billions why should ROI?

Mike.

Victor

I don't think I or we should have to take part in wars that don't affect us or our sensabilities. Will you join the RRF when it's placed on the Turkey / Iraq border?

I have no problem with us being in an international "Neighbourhood Watch", an international vigilante group / lynch mob is another matter.

Originally posted by seamus
American planes were allowed refuel at shannon

Wrong war, wrong decade. Did Shannon even exist as an airport then (other than as the Rinneanna flying boat terminal)? About the only allowances were the benevolent treatment and repatriation of Allied flyers who ended up here and allowing flying boats from Enniskillen overfly Bundoran / Ballyshannon. Even weather forecast were banned.

paddymee

There have been 2 themes to explain why we are neutral.

1) Our army is crap so it we should be neutral.
To me that does not make sense at all for a number of reasons.

If you are weak and defensless you should be ally with some stong force for you protection. You would not stand in the open and display your weakness. Our weakness is not a deterant from invaders.

However if you knew that your neighbours would defend you if invadeded, you could us the excuse of weakness. This could become the accepted situation.

The trouble with this is that you become the ememy of you rfriend's ememy. While we pulled it off in WW2, no can really think that we were neutral. And in the cold war if the nukes had launched our airports were first on the soviets list. so how neutral is that? And we know that we aren't neutral.

Anyway could specialise our army like is being done in Eastern Europe. THe Czechs are specialists in mine clearing, etc...

2) Our neutrality is based upon situation in the late 1930s. I have always felt that our reluctance to join the Allies was based upon the fact that Dev did not want to fight along side (or most likely) the British. I'd imagine the public opionion would have backed him. Again this neutrality was fake because men went to fight or work in England. The war was a boom time for many Irish families.

Personaly I think that reason 2 was the original reason for neurality and number one is a rather feeble attempt to justify it today.

Whatever the reason for it being entered into our constitution in 1937 it was a not guiding principle in Ireland before then and is not a guiding principal now.

I dont think that neutrality in Ireland is platform that we can stand on, say like Switzerland. (Who have a army and reserve to ptotect their neutrality).

So again, why is really Ireland neutral? Is there any moral or truly historic reasons for it?

Paddy

De Rebel

Originally posted by paddymee
Whatever the reason for it being entered into our constitution in 1937............

It was not entered in the Constitution, then or anytime since AFAIK.

bonkey

Originally posted by paddymee
If you are weak and defensless you should be ally with some stong force for you protection.

Nope, you shouldnt.

For a start, why would anyone ally themselves with you if you have nothing to offer them in such an alliance? They only stand to gain by having you as a softer target for any opposing factions they have....in other words, they would accept you as an ally only to use you as cannon fodder.

Better to play the middle ground, and try and keep on the good side of everyone. This, then, lets you stay out of any animosity.

In Ireland's case, this is coupled with a relatively unstrategic location (for most situations). For example, in WW2 we were too close to England to be worth forcibly annexing as an Allied base, and too close to England to be worth taking by the Germans (why fight the British air force and navy to take Ireland when you can just take England itself if you get past them).

While we pulled it off in WW2, no can really think that we were neutral.

Really? So what were all those negotiations with the Germans about then? You know - the ones where we basically agreed that should they win the war we would have no issue living alongside the new Reich?

Neutrality is less about not getting involved and more about being willing to accept any outcome of a situation. Ireland was willing to deal with whoever won WW2, and didnt take actions against any nation in the conflict. We didnt "pull it off" - we were neutral.

And in the cold war if the nukes had launched our airports were first on the soviets list.

First of all, this completely undermines your "side with someone" argument. If only the Soviets targetted us, surely it would be because we had allied ourselves with the opposing faction...and how was this alliance going to help us (as you claimed it did?).

What is not commonly mentioned, but equally important, is that the US also had nukes targetted at Ireland. Both sides wanted to make sure that we didnt become a refuelling station for the other.

so how neutral is that?

How neutral are we by implication of the fact that
both superpowers had enough nukles targetted at our little island to make sure that the Green Green Grass stayed glowing for a few centuries? I would say its a pretty good indication that neither side considered us to be "in their pocket". Of course, if you only present half the information, its easy to see how you can claim we were obviously on one side of the whole issue.

I have always felt that our reluctance to join the Allies was based upon the fact that Dev did not want to fight along side (or most likely) the British. I'd imagine the public opionion would have backed him. Again this neutrality was fake because men went to fight or work in England.

Are you even reading what you're writing? Youre saying that people didnt want to side with the Brits, but went to fight/work in England. Errrr???? Self-contradictory.

The war was a boom time for many Irish families.

Care to give some examples? From talking to my folx and grandfolx, I've head SFA about that. I've heard of and seen evidence of massive shortages of pretty much everything we had to import, as well as limited availability of much of our own natural resources. I have never heard anyone claim it was a "boom time", unless they meant "boom as in bomb-going-off".

Personaly I think that reason 2 was the original reason for neurality and number one is a rather feeble attempt to justify it today.

So let me get this straight...Despite not being able to show a single case when Ireland was not militarily neutral, and despite such militaristic neutrailty being backed by the influences in our constitution, that the only reason one of the greatest statesmen this country has ever known refused to stand with the Allies was cause he didnt like the English?

And you call the remaining 50 years of subsequent militaristic neutrality a "feeble effort" to show otherwise?

No wonder you were worried about people ripping your ideas apart...

Whatever the reason for it being entered into our constitution in 1937 it was a not guiding principle in Ireland before then and is not a guiding principal now.

You havent offered a shred of evidence to back this up. You havent shown a single case where Ireland was not militarily neutral, which is all we have ever claimed to be....I dont think anyone has ever made a serious claim that Ireland has attempted to remain politically neutral.

I dont think that neutrality in Ireland is platform that we can stand on, say like Switzerland. (Who have a army and reserve to ptotect their neutrality).

I'm vastly amused that no-one has ever commented on the fact that Switzerland, while usually considered the most neutral country in the world, has a permanent attachment of its army working on foreign soil for a foreign administration, and (IIRC) has done since the inception of the modern state (Confederation Helvetica).

Also, I would suggest, paddymee, that these is a subtle difference between being a rich nation who's location is right at the crossroads of European transport routes and being a poor island on the western edge of the continent.

Switzerland has always been a more attractive target than Ireland - financially and strategically. To argue that we should have armies to protect our neutrality because they do is not a logical conclusion.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm vastly amused that no-one has ever commented on the fact that Switzerland,

We were trying to stay on topic

Originally posted by bonkey
while usually considered the most neutral country in the world, has a permanent attachment of its army working on foreign soil for a foreign administration, and (IIRC) has done since the inception of the modern state (Confederation Helvetica).

Yeah something to the effec that everyone got fed up with Swiss mercenaries having an excessive impact on neighbouring wars, so Switzerland had to be neutral and could only contribute to the Papal Guard.

rien_du_tout

Whatever the reasons before. I would hope that we are neutral now because we acknowledge the great evil that war is. Ireland can be neutral yet still take part in UN missions cant it? I know some people say this violates our neutrality but its nothing in comparison with US warplanes landing at shannon, which wasnt even voted for in the dáil, or the european army being set up. If we take part in UN missions than surely that means that most of the countries in the world are behind us and would mean any1 taking us on would feel the weight of the world community

seán

Elmo

I'm vastly amused that no-one has ever commented on the fact that Switzerland,

And these are the people who took gold teeth from the Germans during WW2, God we would of made a packet doing that.
We just put German Amry men up in the curragh and sent American and British back over the boarder.
What did the swiss do with the americans and british and germans in their country?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by Elmo
And these are the people who took gold teeth from the Germans during WW2

Gold teeth or gold melted down from gold teeth?

Originally posted by Elmo
We just put German Amry men up in the curragh and sent American and British back over the boarder.

Well most of them were from their respective navies and air forces, but yes just about every German was interned (exceptions could have been made for disabled detainees, but I'm not sure if this was put into practice), but especially after 1943 many new British and American arrival were secreted across the border.

Originally posted by Elmo
What did the swiss do with the americans and british and germans in their country?

I think they also detained them, but many allied service men preferred that to being POWs in Germany and 'deliberately' crash landed in Switzerland. I doubt if many Germans 'accidentally' ended up in Switzerland.

Originally posted by daveirl
I don't agree with Irish neutrality at all. Especially with regard to common EU defence policy. It is a selfish and self serving policy. It's a disgrace that we would expect our EU allies to defend us but that should one of them get attacked we wouldn't do anything.

But isn’t NATO also a self-serving policy? Are they really protecting us –as there is no real (conventional) threat to us? I think this is something that should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Giving any alliance a blank cheque is not a good idea.

paddymee

Better to play the middle ground, and try and keep on the good side of everyone. This, then, lets you stay out of any animosity. [/ QUOTE]

What is not commonly mentioned, but equally important, is that the US also had nukes targetted at Ireland. Both sides wanted to make sure that we didnt become a refuelling station for the other.

So playing the middle ground is good?

I would say its a pretty good indication that neither side considered us to be "in their pocket".

I agree. Because we had no formal alliance with either side. We are neutral.

You havent shown a single case where Ireland was not militarily neutral, which is all we have ever claimed to be

Again I agree. We are militarily neutral.
However I looked the up definition of neutral \http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neutral) "Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest". I don't think the people of Ireland can claim neutrality based on the "favoring" part.

So well done on "riping" my views apart. But as usual Bonkey, you have added little to the original question.

The question was "Why is Ireland Neutral?".

Thanks to everyone else for their replies.

Paddy

bonkey

Originally posted by paddymee
So playing the middle ground is good?

I never said that. I was showing that your "soviet missile threat" is irrelevant. If we had sided with one group, then the opposition would have bombed us. If we side with neither, then both would have bombed us.

It effectively shows that the threat from such superpowers exists regardless of whether we are neutral or not.

There is nothing to be gained from an alliance in such a situation.

This is what I was driving at, and what you seem to have missed. One reason that we have remained militarily neutral is because forming an alliance offered us nothing.

When dealing with global-scale threats, an alliance is pretty meaningless. When we deal with more localised issues, then Ireland has, effectively, nothing to fear because of our location. In either case, an alliance would not give us any tangible benefits.

But as usual Bonkey, you have added little to the original question.

I'm sorry. I was of the impression that this was a discussion - that answering or coutering points raised by other people was useful in approaching an answer.
I would have thought that questioning so-called answers which havent got a shred of evidence to back them up, and which make some highly questionable claims was highly relevant.

Of course, seeing as it was your points I questioned, I suppose its easier to imply that my refutation "added nothing" than it is to actually answer the points raised.

The question was "Why is Ireland Neutral?".

Gosh. I hadnt realised that. Here was me thinking the thread title was completely unrelated.

Well, here we go then. I'll give you nice simple answers, so you dont get confused into thinking I'm just refuting you instead of offering valid answers as well (like you did the last time).

Some of these might look familiar - they'd be the points I made last time when I apparently wasnt adding anything to your discussion.

1) Because we have nothing to offer an alliance.
2) Because we cannot afford the costs it would take to change this first fact.
3) Because we have nothing to gain from an alliance, and potentially much to lose
4) Because those few nations who are perceived as being neutral (and we are often still amongst those) are actually held in high esteem by many others, which is and of itself advantageous.
5) Because just maybe we have learned from hundreds of years of occupation and oppression, on the backs of centuries of internal conflict that war and all that comes with it doesnt solve anything.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by daveirl
Our neutrality is damaging in situations like Kosovo.

I'm not certain on that - however we are part of the solution http://www.military.ie/overseas/europe.htm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Its cheap, thats the main reason. Given that its cheaper to have no defence forces at all imo but whod wed have for parades and to wear pretty uniforms etc etc.

Other reason is have you seen the students out protesting about *other* countries going to war? Can you imagine the whining if Ireland ever sent a soldier off to fight in a war? I mean they went nuts about Ireland joining PfP.

Cheaper and less headaches for politicians simply to keep things the way they are.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by daveirl
Yes we are part of the solution after NATO intervention to oust the Serbs from Kosovo. Wouldn't it have veen better if we didn't just sit back and watch people die until NATO decided to go in.

The whole of the conflict in the Balkans took place on and inside the EU's borders. Its a disgrace that the EU couldn't get together to sort it out and it disgusts me that if it happened tomorrow nothing has changed and it would take US intervention to stop it this time too.

The Blakans conflict took place inside EU borders?? I dont think it did. However I think that it's all very well to look back and say that we should have intervened, but it's very hard to take sides in an internal conflict getting away from this specific example. I dissagree with the notion of war itself but obviously the major countries of the world do. So what do you do when there s a conflict in a country, what should we do? Discourage participation in war , that's what I feel neutrality is and there is a certain respect that goes with that.

seán

Victor

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
The Blakans conflict took place inside EU borders??

Yes, Austria (and Hungary) was overflown by Yugoslav aircraft at various stages. Not to mention the refugee issue affecting several EU countries and the fact the Slovenia is one of the candidate countries. So yes on the EU's borders and in the EU.