Other than Senator Tom Clonan, who repeatedly condemns it, the silence is deafening - despite it being an unambiguous breach of Irish neutrality.
Not a word from Sinn Féin. Not a word from People Before Profit. Not a word from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. Not a word from Catherine Connolly or Michael D Higgins. Their press releases draw a complete blank.
Yet the same people are always out giving interviews about non-existent plots to get Ireland into NATO - something that has no chance of occurring.
So why then the total silence on a Real live breach of Irish neutrality by an Irish company enabling Russia's illegal war, a war that breaches the UN charter and international law? Could it be that many of the Irish neutrality devotees are simply motivated by their end hate of The West, of NATO and everything else, but couldn't care less if neutrality breaches help Russia, and anti-Western countries?
Getting them to ever criticise Russia, or the USSR, or the Warsaw Pact, is like plucking hens' teeth. They will always bend over backwards to make excuses for Putin, or Stalin.
Some even justify the USSR's illegal occupation and annexation of the independent sovereign Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940 - an annexation that flowed from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany. They then say that "to secure peace" the three states should be handed back to Russian control, irrespective of the wishes of the peoples there.
The same people justify the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, just as they will justify the Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 - always of course twisting the facts to inevitably blame The West and NATO. Even when citizens stage revolutions, some Irish neutrality devotees invariably blame The West for engineering a supposed coup - as if citizens have no right to control their own destiny.
Those same Irish neutrality devotees proclaim themselves "anti-imperialists" while cheering on and excusing the most imperialist state in Europe-Asia: Russia. It is a country that has spent attacking its neighbours repeatedly. There is hardly a single one of its neighbours it has not at some stage invaded.
Finland finally declared its independent from Russia in 1917 after the fall of the Tsar - after decades of brutal Russianisation policies under Tsars Alexander III and Nicholas II. It has been recognised internationally as independent since 1918. Russia invaded it twice: in the Winter War and Continuation War. In 1948 it was forced to agree to a policy later named "Finlandization" (the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighbouring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system.)
Under it, the Soviet Union took effective control of its foreign and security policy - a period known in Finland as the 'period of national shame' or the 'period of national humiliation.' It finally regained its sovereignty in foreign and security policy in 1991 - and warns countries internationally never ever to repeat the mistake they made.
And yet, one hears some Irish neutrality advocates say that Russia has a "right" to enforce that again on Finland. I wonder would they say Britain has the right to take control of Irish foreign and security policy, or the US has a right to take control of Mexican and Cuban foreign and security policy, or is it only their beloved imperialist Russia that has that right?
When Putin after a century of independence asserted that Finland no right to be independent of Russia, I heard a number of Irish neutrality devotees actually justify his stance and say that the Finns had no right to their own sovereignty!!!
I have come to be cynical of so-called Irish neutrality, as so many of its most fanatical adherents are really just anti-wWestern pro-Russian apologists. I don't have a problem with real genuine neutrality, of the sort believed in by Senator Clonan - though some of the arguments he has made on the triple lock are factually wrong. He at least has a real concept of objective neutrality, not simply a neutrality that is anti-Western and pro-Russian.
That said, factually, the concept of being neutral as a means to stay out of war doesn't work. As neutrals all over found to their cost, if someone wants to attack you they will. Belgium discovered that twice, as did Luxembourg. So did the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in World War II. Sweden only avoided Nazi invasion by effectively collaborating with the Nazis and supplying them with critical minerals and a right to use its territory.
Of the other three neutrals in Europe - two, Ireland and the Vatican, were scheduled for invasion by the Nazis, but weren't invaded for reasons unconnected to their neutrality. Switzerland was protected by its geography as it was exceptionally difficult to conquer. No country in Europe avoided invasion by being neutral.
The 1907 Second Hague Convention supposedly protected neutrals who were signatories from attack by signatories in Article 1, which states "The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable." In fact it quickly turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on, and was just an unenforceable gentleman's promise. The convention was negotiated from 1904, signed in 1907, and came into force in 1910. It was broken in 1914, when one signatory, the German Second Reich, invaded two neutral signatories: Luxembourg on 2nd August 1914, and Belgium on 4th August 1914. There was no come back, other than the complaint "but you promised you wouldn't do that!" It had no enforcement mechanism.
Its weakness can be seen that countries invading neutrals have never even bothered formally leaving the convention before breaking it. It is that meaningless.
I am not arguing that Ireland should join NATO, or that it shouldn't. I am not arguing that Ireland should or should not be neutral. However it is important to know what neutrality is and what it isn't. Firstly, many of the loudest proponents of neutrality are really just the proverbial "useful idiots" who are supremely anti-West and pro-Moscow. They are not the spokespeople, much less the guardians, of real neutrality.
Secondly, history shows that neutrality is no protection from attack, as almost neutral in Europe, bar three, were attacked. Those three weren't attacked for reasons unconnected with their neutrality. All those attacked joined NATO when it was created, most at the beginning, a few later on.
Thirdly, contrary to myth, being neutral does not give a country a special independent status that makes it a centre for peace talks and negotiations. One of the most popular place for such negotiations is Norway. Norway was a founding member of NATO in 1949.
One negative with neutrality is that it gives countries a delusion of safety - where they think "we are neutral. No-one will attack us." Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all found that that is not the case. Ireland found out that it was potential target for invasion by the Nazis when it began intercepting Nazi communications in May 1940, and quickly made plans in Plan W for Britain to come to its aid if it was attacked. As soon as the Taoiseach requested aid, the British ambassador would send the code word 'pumpkins'. The Royal Navy and RAF would attack the Nazi troops landing between Wexford and Waterford by sea and air, while British troops would cross the border and travel south to attack Nazi troops on land, aiding Irish soldiers.
That delusion of safety may be why Ireland has a tiny spend on defence - despite defence being a core duty of every sovereign state. The average spend among neutrals in Europe on defence is 0.9% of GDP. Neutral Cyprus spends 1.8% of GDP. Austria aims to reach 1% of GDP by this year. Switzerland aims to reach 1% by 2030. Ireland spends a miniscule 0.2%. It isn't just the lowest among neutrals, and by far the lowest in Europe, its is third worst in the world. Only Mauritius and Haiti are lower.
Yes, GDP is an unhelpful measurement for Ireland. However, it is the standard one used internationally for defence comparisons. Even using others, Ireland is way off the minimum target it should be at, as a sovereign state.
And yes Ireland is a target. You cannot have critical underwater infrastructure that all of Europe depends on just off your coast and not be. You cannot have just three interconnectors, and face rolling nationwide power cuts if they are cut, and not be. And you cannot be a net contributor to the EU budget, where Putin has made clear the EU is a target, and you not be.
Whether it is neutral or in NATO is not the point (In reality there is no likelihood of Ireland, Austria or Switzerland joining NATO.) It is that if neutral, know what neutrality is and is not. It is not a protection from attack, as if a country wants to attack a neutral they always do. As a sovereign country you need to take your defence seriously, and you should be spending at least the average spend of neutrals on defence. Anything else is reckless.
⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.
No comments