Neutrality

cremeegg said:

Indeed your criticism of SF is entirely based on their current irresponsible financial policy.

Click to expand...

And their populism and the support for child murdering terrorists by their current "activists".

A sound and logical step towards active neutrality. This move is necessary for providing for the safety and security of citizens abroad, military and civilian. It removes the arbitrary veto that the P5 have over the States ability to deploy more 12 members of the DF abroad, in the event a scenario arises that is not narrowly defined in the Defence Act.

The contrarians will of course say this moves us closer to joining a military alliance, potentially (though highly improbable in the medium term). If there was an appetite for that, as in Finland, then it's self evident that the triple lock would have been no impediment. The same people will also complain about Ireland having ceded some sovereignty to the EU but will also now complain about this government restoring sovereignty from the P5.

To be honest I think this move is very confusing and whether it compromises or promotes our neutrality is open to interpretation. Personally, I believe this is just one effort to get neutrality shoved out the back door. There is nothing wrong with our current neutrality situation. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Leper said:

To be honest I think this move is very confusing and whether it compromises or promotes our neutrality is open to interpretation. Personally, I believe this is just one effort to get neutrality shoved out the back door. There is nothing wrong with our current neutrality situation. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Click to expand...

Except the UN requirements effectively give the likes of Vladimir Putin a veto over how the Irish Government might deploy Irish forces.

Conan said:

Except the UN requirements effectively give the likes of Vladimir Putin a veto over how the Irish Government might deploy Irish forces.

Click to expand...

Which could include blocking their ability to evacuate Irish citizens from conflict zones.

Bacik puts forth the case for retaining the triple lock.

Some gems:

The government of the day has no mandate apparently

The Tánaiste had no mandate for this week’s surprise announcement that the Government is apparently planning to do away with the triple lock.

Click to expand...

To be charitable, this is misleading

But this purported justification is fundamentally misconceived. First, the legislation underpinning the UN approval requirement specifies that authorisation can be provided either by the Security Council, or by the General Assembly—where there is no Russian veto.

Click to expand...

The GA can make 'recommendations' related to international peace and security. The primacy of the UNSC cannot be usurped by the GA ,never mind having the power to actually deploy a peacekeeping mission.

This beaut

We have always recognised that military neutrality does not mean political neutrality.

Click to expand...

A paradox of convenience for Irish politicians (and opposition politicians in particular). In fairness, the rules and obligations of neutral states are outdated (which makes them confusing and undefined, essentially means whatever you want it to mean) and the legal basis for compliance with these international rules makes them unenforceable in the Irish Courts.

We would instead like to see the principle of military neutrality enshrined in our Constitution, and we have previously put forward the wording for such an amendment.

Click to expand...

In 2016, in a speech to the Dáil on the on proposed Thirty-Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Neutrality) Bill, Willie Penrose articulated the inherent contradiction whereby, arising from our membership of the UN, "Chapter VII of the UN Charter confers on the Security Council a capacity to instruct member states as to how to react when there is a threat to international peace and security...compliance with Security Council resolutions may entail loss of neutrality in time of a war in which the State is not a participant".

Secondly, the constitutional amendment proposal was 1) explicitly prohibit the State from membership of a military alliance for mutual defence and 2) should prohibit the State, unless authorised by the United Nations and with Dáil assent, from declaring war, participating in war, sending the Defence Forces to participate in any form of armed conflict or providing any assistance to belligerents in time of war.

So absolutely handcuffing any future administration to provide for the security of the state? Akin to having to seek EU approval to put a fire out on your doorstep. The galling thing is that a parliamentarian feels that the peoples sovereignty (and their security) should be traded for nothing in return, so-called 'international legitimacy'? When all the death and destruction is done? And if your position is morally driven, explain how you can be both "morally right" and have international consensus about international conflict, its inherently incompatible.

Totally unsuitable position for the modern world of hybrid and cyber threats.

"How did you go bankrupt? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly"

Martin put forward his reasoning for the proposal to do away with the triple lock.

The first half of the article is surmises the activities of the consultative forum, recently held. He outlines DFA and DF initiatives e.g.

Secondly, a further area of widespread agreement at the Forum was the need for investment in our defence forces...capable of responding to increasingly complex security threats...with a commensurate increase of the Defence budget from €1.1 billion to €1.5 billion, in 2022 prices, by 2028.

Click to expand...

Wholly and entirely inadequate resourcing given the significant under investment in the last few decades - but that's another discussion. There is alot of catching up to do.

While not seemingly relevant to the triple lock, participating in a non-UN sanctioned mission would result significant extra cost to the state. UN missions are wholly reimbursed (one of the political conveniences not appearing in our self-congratulatory discussion of our peacekeeping record/neutrality. Its much easier to be morally superior when there is no financial cost to ourselves).

Contrast this with our previous participation in EUFOR Tchad/CAR (There was a UN mandate for this mission but there was an EU and a UN component). Mostly funded through the EUs Athena programme (covering the financing of external affairs) but to which we contribute significantly more. EUFOR was originally commanded by the DF's Lt Gen Pat Nash. He famously refused to declare 'full operational capability' as he deemed there was insufficient medical facilities available to the mission (field hospitals and helicopters - required as the mission area was vast). No such focus on the necessary resources when the mission went fully UN (MINURCAT) subsequently. Non-UN missions are usually staffed and resourced more appropriately, reducing risks to our soldiers and improving outcomes. but you have to pay for it. A point totally avoided by Martin.

Back to the triple lock, this is the meat of it:

Thirdly, we also need to reflect on the reality of the world we face today, including the systemic challenges facing the UN Security Council, which directly impact on our role in international peacekeeping.

This is most apparent in how difficult it is to agree or renew UN peacekeeping mandates, with not a single new peacekeeping mission authorised by the Council since 2014. As matters stand, however, the ‘Triple Lock’ provided for in our own domestic legislation effectively allows the five permanent members of the Security Council, like Russia, to bind Ireland’s hands in our international engagement.

I believe there’s something morally wrong in giving an authoritarian and aggressive imperialist power like Putin’s Russia a de facto veto on how we, as an independent republic, deploy our troops.

It makes sense to amend existing legislation to allow us to respond to crisis situations with more agility, and where in making these important decisions we are not surrendering our sovereignty.

Click to expand...

Nothing ground breaking, nothing demonstrating any particularly strongly held beliefs, in my view. I think his view is weakly held and the argument is not well articulated.

Trump has said that NATO is dead if he is re-elected. He said that the US will not come to Europes aid if we are invaded. The EU is spending a considerable amount of time and money attempting to plan for such an eventuality. Some EU countries, France, Poland and Germany in particular, are expanding their war economies.
Given the changing world, the continued weakening of the UK, the country that we have always been reliant on for our defence, and our strategic importance for transatlantic data flows, is it now time for us to grow up and start acting like adults and participate in our own security?

This looks ominous.

Sophrosyne said:

This looks ominous.

Click to expand...

That war has started. The men of Ukraine are fighting and dying on our behalf. We won't send them guns. We won't send them ammunition. We won't even send them money to pay for it. Now we don't even want to feed their women and children while they fight our enemy.

But we're neutral and so we're the good guys...

Seems relevant to this thread...

IRELAND HAS JOINED a new agreement with Nato which will see enhanced cooperation aimed at protecting against potential threats to undersea infrastructure and cybersecurity. The Individually Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP) will allow for greater information and intelligence sharing with the military alliance in areas such as peacekeeping, maritime security and tackling cyber and hybrid threats.

Varadkar, rightly challenged for Ireland's defence policy at the Munich Security Conference. The defence of our policy position is laid our by him in conversation and in response to a number of questions and it is to say the least, vacuous.



Moment of enlightenment @21:09
Prof. Richardson: To the panel - "What do think would the implications for the rules based international order, if more countries adopted a neutral position, decided to declare themselves neutral?"

Varadkar: "... good question, I haven't thought of that...."

The threat of another Russian invasion will be greatly exacerbated if Donald Trump wins in November. Trump has already undermined the Nato guarantee that the US would come to the aid of any member attacked by Russia. It is this confluence of an emboldened and militarily aggressive Russia, and an America that may turn away from its historic security guarantees to Europe, that is prompting the EU defence revolution.

Which brings us back to Ireland’s role in this. Despite fine promises about investment in the Defence Forces and “conversations” about neutrality last year, the pace remains pedestrian and the ambitions limited. Undersea cables, Irish airspace and territorial waters remain undefended – or rather, defended by someone else (ie Nato). Ireland plans to increase military spending to €1.5 billion a year by 2028, a fraction of the 2 per cent of GDP required of Nato members. The bogeyman of Nato membership, much beloved of the pro-neutrality lobby, is a joke. Micheál Martin might as well seek to join the Cork senior hurling team. They wouldn’t have him either.

Meanwhile, the Government this week decided to nominate the Defence Forces chief of staff Lieut Gen Seán Clancy to head the EU’s Military Committee, its highest military body. In fairness to us, we really have some neck. There is literally no end to our chutzpah on this stuff.

Click to expand...

Leper said:

To be honest I think this move is very confusing and whether it compromises or promotes our neutrality is open to interpretation. Personally, I believe this is just one effort to get neutrality shoved out the back door. There is nothing wrong with our current neutrality situation. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Click to expand...

But we don't know it's not broken because it's never been tested. It's like a damaged vase held together with sticky tape, putin would only have to give it a tip and it would all fall apart. Maybe in that scenario the British would come in but it would be on their terms and they would require a high price, maybe British military presence on the island again justified in order to keep hostile forces away from UK

That could actually be a game plan of putin, not to actually invade but to cause the British to react to russian interference. Then putin has a justification for the invasion of ukraine etc, he will point to Britain and say they are doing the exact same thing in Ireland. Many believe putin was the main instigator of the hamas attack on Israel in order to divert western attention away from ukraine and put the US in a bad light. You can't rule anything out with putin, Ireland could similarly be used as a diversionary tactic

joe sod said:

But we don't know it's not broken because it's never been tested. It's like a damaged vase held together with sticky tape, putin would only have to give it a tip and it would all fall apart. Maybe in that scenario the British would come in but it would be on their terms and they would require a high price, maybe British military presence on the island again justified in order to keep hostile forces away from UK

That could actually be a game plan of putin, not to actually invade but to cause the British to react to russian interference. Then putin has a justification for the invasion of ukraine etc, he will point to Britain and say they are doing the exact same thing in Ireland. Many believe putin was the main instigator of the hamas attack on Israel in order to divert western attention away from ukraine and put the US in a bad light. You can't rule anything out with putin, Ireland could similarly be used as a diversionary tactic

Click to expand...

If Putin landed 20,000 men on Banna Strand, would you join up to fight, or send your children off to fight.

I wouldn't.

cremeegg said:

If Putin landed 20,000 men on Banna Strand, would you join up to fight, or send your children off to fight.

I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

And do you think that they'd leave you and your children alone when they got to your street because you stayed at home?

cremeegg said:

If Putin landed 20,000 men on Banna Strand, would you join up to fight, or send your children off to fight.

I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Nothing actually stopping him now, but if we joined NATO he'd think twice..

Purple said:

And do you think that they'd leave you and your children alone when they got to your street because you stayed at home?

Click to expand...

Yes I do.

The vast majority of people in Russian occupied Ukraine are getting on with their lives. Going to work, getting paid, living. Sure everything is under the eye of Russian patrols, but I would rather live like that than die on a beach.

Here is a likn to an item on life under Russian occupation.


although the tone of the piece is Russia bad (which I agree with) it shows people getting married, collecting welfare, paying tax and registering their cars.

So would I rather my kids die on a beach or be forced to learn pro-Russian history at school. No hesitation as far as I'm concerned.

cremeegg said:

Yes I do.

The vast majority of people in Russian occupied Ukraine are getting on with their lives. Going to work, getting paid, living. Sure everything is under the eye of Russian patrols, but I would rather live like that than die on a beach.

Here is a likn to an item on life under Russian occupation.

Life in occupied Ukraine

NPR's Scott Detrow talks with David Lewis, a professor of international relations at the University of Exeter, about the "administrative occupation" transforming Ukrainian society.

www.npr.org

although the tone of the piece is Russia bad (which I agree with) it shows people getting married, collecting welfare, paying tax and registering their cars.

So would I rather my kids die on a beach or be forced to learn pro-Russian history at school. No hesitation as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

So you'd accept your children and their children living under a totalitarian dictatorship. Fair enough. I think fundamental freedoms are worth fighting for. Possibly even dying for.

Purple said:

So you'd accept your children and their children living under a totalitarian dictatorship. Fair enough. I think fundamental freedoms are worth fighting for. Possibly even dying for.

Click to expand...

I would yes.

I have known many people who lived under a totalitarian dictatorship. My parents in law lived under Nazi occupation for 5 years. My mother in law was a nurse, working in a hospital. Certainly she resented the German occupation, and the fate of the Jewish families in her home village haunted her, these were people she knew, not just people she read about. But during that time she lived her life, restricted though it was, she took care of her grandmother, she met her friends, she did the things people in their early 20s do. The worst thing she personally suffered was lack of food in the winter of 1945.

My father in law worked in the harbour when the war broke out. Unlike his future wife he worked under direct German supervision, with armed soldiers patrolling. He resented that too, but again he lived, and I don't mean that he survived the war I mean that he spent the 5 years living his life. At one stage he was put on a train to be taken to Germany to work. His mother challenged this and he was released. His brother was not so lucky, he spent 15 months as a slave worker in Germany. He survived, returned home and his kids and grand kids are around to tell the tale.

I have a Polish friend whose mother lived under Russian occupation as a child. They had a Russian soldier billeted in their house, he was very young and afraid, terrified that they would kill him in his sleep. He was amazed by how wealthy they were. In fact even by the standards of 1940s Poland they were poor peasants, they had a packed earth floor in their house. But they had chickens and pigs and ate meat daily. That made them rich in his eyes.