Ireland - European Union
It was, until recently at least, widely accepted that the policy of even-handedness between the combatants was pursued to the point of pedantry. Because the Eire Government was neutral, it had never been allowed to forget for one instant that Eire's immunity could not last a day if she became, a base for German intrigue. Brian Girvin has gone so far as to talk of the indifference of the Southern government to the outcome of the war; Clare Wills has emphasised the rigour and effectiveness of censorship in how the war was reported, and has shown how Irish public opinion ranged from pro-British to pro-German, with a majority wanting to keep clear of any entanglement. This was reflected in wartime elections.
T. Ryle Dwyer, of mixed Irish-American parentage, is the leading academic authority on Irish neutrality as it impacted on relations with the United States and is the author of the standard work on the subject, Irish Neutrality in the USA. Dwyer's book, "Behind the Green Curtain: Ireland's Phoney Neutrality During World War II", seeks to show how the Irish were neutral, but neutral on the Allied side. Irish diplomats spied for the United States during the course of the war. Irish diplomats in Europe carried messages and supplied information to the OSS - the predecessor of the CIA - with the full knowledge and consent of de Valera. Behind the Green Curtain is a comprehensive account of Irish neutrality, focusing strongly on the American - and to a lesser extent the Canadian - connection. It confirms beyond any doubt that Ireland made a positive and partisan contribution to the allied war effort.
This revisionism recasts the history of twentieth century Ireland in a distinctly progressive light: an unbroken march to modernity by one of the older democracies, which did the right thing by Europe in its hour of need. Ireland was oncea gain a repository of light in a new dark age, etc... But even with Allied victory increasingly likely, de Valera retained an attachment to neutrality to the point of its becoming an idée fixe. The perception of many during, and especially after the War was that Eire had had an easy time as a Neutral, and that it was full of Nazi sympathisers.
The end of the war found Ireland with a serious economic problem and the electorate in the mood for a change of Government. There was a strong if latent feeling of resentment in the UK against Eire's attitude during the war. This may perhaps not be enduring, since it is not a British habit to bear undying grudges. But initially it might have been easily be provoked into active hostility if a sudden change were made in the policy of distant relations with Eire. American opinion generally was alienated from Eire, and Eire cannot hope, as in the past, to embarrass the UK by counting, on American sympathy in complaints against Britain. But there is always the danger, and there will certainly be the attempt on the part of Eire to arouse American sympathies over the partition issue, and the UK must be careful not to add to this risk by anything that could reasonably be represented as unfair treatment of Eire. In the Dominions generally, there was a certain sympathy with the Eire point of view and the right to be neutral, and nationalist opinion, therefore, in the Dominions was inclined to support Eire's independent stand.
Article 42(7) of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) introduced a 'mutual assistance clause'. This clause stipulates that in the event that a Member State is “the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and without prejudice to the specific defence 'character' of each Member State (for example, the neutral status of certain Member States or NATO commitments). The clause allows Member States to offer both military and civilian support to their counterpart invoking the clause. Being limited to the obligation of aid and assistance, Article 42(7) does not carry the same obligations associated with defence alliances such as NATO. Each Member State is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary, which does not necessarily mean the deployment of military assets.
The mutual assistance clause is further clarified in the Protocol 11 to the Lisbon Treaty - sometimes referred to as the Irish Protocol - which states: “It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory”.
Membership of, or association with, any military bloc in the West carries with it the suggestion, even by the Department of Foreign Affairs, that it would degrade our reputation as a UN peacekeeper. Norway and Canada likely enjoy reputations as peacekeepers (both militarily and diplomatically) at least as high as Ireland’s, and are unafraid of voicing principled positions where the Department of Foreign Affairs appears reluctant.
The State could decide to abandon altogether the maintenance of a military, as Costa Rica has done. Theirs was at leasta principled stance. However, for a state with pretensions to neutrality and the maintenance of a global footprint in peacekeeping, Ireland' s stance lacked credibility.
The country operates under a "triple lock" system that includes a mandatory resolution from United Nations Security Council. But Ireland's leaders insist this military neutrality does not mean the country is politically or morally neutral — not least in light of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ireland supported Ukraine with €122 million ($134 million) in nonlethal military assistance such as fuel, food, medical equipment or protective gear. Authorities have also authorized 30 members of the Irish Defence Forces to offer specialized training to Ukrainian soldiers at a first-of-its-kind European Union mission. But that broad backing for Kyiv is now sparking debate in Dublin — and as in other neutral nations in Europe, the war is prompting reflection on long-held policies.
The nation is today tucked between allies: to the west across the Atlantic, Canada and the United States — and to the north and east, the United Kingdom and the European Union. This means "psychologically, the Irish don't feel threatened. Location wasn't always on the Republic of Ireland's side. It secured independence from British rule in the first half of the 20th century, but not without a war of independence and a civil war. Ireland remained officially neutral during the Second World War. "It was the first time a free Ireland could decide not to participate in a British war.
The Irish Neutrality League, a campaign group set up after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, argues the country's diplomatic potential as a peacebuilder is being compromised. Parliamentarian Paul Murphy from the "People before Profit" party — which describes itself as "ecosocialist" — helped create the group. In his words: "because neutrality is under attack."
Murphy and other group members object to the Irish government's move to involve the Irish Defence Forces in the EU's military training mission for Ukraine, as well as to Irish officials joining meetings of the "Ukraine Defense Contact Group," set up by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to coordinate military aid to Kyiv between some 50 countries. The lawmaker thinks these actions undermine Irish neutrality.
Neutrality is not a cowardly policy, stated former Taoiseach Eamon deValera. Generations of Irish political leaders, Daniel O’Connell, Wolfe Tone, James Connolly, Hanna Sheehy Skeffington among others, advocated Irish neutrality concomitant with Irish independence. O’Connell’s internationally-acclaimed life and work, for which he earned the admiration of Frederick Douglass among others, sought to eradicate racism and militarism – the two main components at the heart of 19th century imperialism. Sheehy-Skeffington’s commitment to women’s equality, social justice and international solidarity never wavered in a lifetime of feminist activism spanning two world wars. Any effort to compromise Irish neutrality defies the principles of the women and men who sacrificed so much for the nation.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
