Ireland has maintained a policy of neutrality since 1922. Gerard Delanty argues that with the demise of Europe’s security architecture, neutrality is now little more than a comforting illusion.
Irish military neutrality is a foreign policy dogma that once had a political rationale. Recent questions about its continued relevance have not given sufficient attention to the historical and comparative context. As is well known, the early Free State established in 1922 made a declaration of neutrality. In the context of the turbulent times of the mid-twentieth century, it was understandable that the new state would assert its political identity as a neutral country.
The doctrine was in any case pragmatic. It accommodated unofficial support for the Allied war-effort and Ireland’s place within the free world was not in question. However, as the Free State gave way to a more self-confident Republic in 1949, that rationale lost its purpose.
Why did it survive in the period of unprecedented stability that followed the end of the Second World War and what purpose did it serve? The answer is that it didn’t matter. It was of no importance to Ireland or to anyone else. But the illusion of a purpose remained.
Éamon de Valera may have had a point in claiming that Ireland should stay away from the geopolitics of the “Great Powers”, especially when Britain was one such power. The doctrine was of course also an expression of the perception of Ireland as a pristine nation and a place apart from the materialist and fraught modern world.
A comforting illusion
The Cold War was, as often said, a “phoney-war”. In fact, it was not a war at all. The two superpowers never went to war and the period was one of relative peace and stability, despite the build-up of nuclear weapons. While primarily a doctrine of national sovereignty, and exaggerated moral superiority, neutrality had its appeal to the Irish left in this period of nuclear armament.
I was never myself particularly supportive of Irish neutrality (the war against Nazi Germany had a moral basis) but I also recognised that it could serve as a moral and political statement against nuclear armament. This was perhaps the best argument for Irish neutrality, though neutrality and opposition do not fit well together.
In any case, in the Cold War decades, Ireland was never in danger and western Europe was never seriously going to face a Soviet invasion. The USSR had settled for internal repression within its zone of influence. So, the dogma remained, a comfortable illusion that was never seriously challenged.
However, it is all too clear that Irish neutrality is in very different waters today, where the military security of the state is in question as is the security of Europe more generally. The myth of Irish neutrality may have been a comforting illusion in the past, but it is now a dangerous one.
The nature of war has changed. Nuclear weapons are now in the hands of many pariah autocratic states, one of which is the Russian Federation. The stability of the Cold War decades is over as is the interlude of the 1990s when a new world order took shape. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and its major onslaught in 2022, Russia is now a major force of instability.
Geopolitical realities
Ireland can no longer delude itself into thinking it is a safe small island off the Atlantic seaboard of Europe. Since 2022, it is apparent that a hybrid war of sorts has started between Russia and Europe as a whole. In whatever way this is to be understood, it can be said that while we are not in a traditional land war with Russia, we are also not at peace.
The seas around Ireland are now one of the focal points of the new hybrid war. A feature of our digital world is a vast network of cables and pipelines on the seabed, the security of which is paramount for national and international stability. This infrastructure is critical for electronic and critical energy supplies.
Russian submarines have conducted missions in the seas around Ireland since 2022. A Russian spy ship with suspicious intentions was recently escorted out of the Irish Sea. With its limited naval fleet, designed for fishery protection, and meagre military spending, Ireland is clearly not able to defend its territorial waters. In this situation, military cooperation with neighbouring countries such as Norway, the UK and France, is a practical necessity for Ireland.
There is no constitutional prohibition against a more active military role and the word neutrality is not mentioned in the constitution (Article 29.4 is open to interpretation and a constitutional amendment is not out of the question for a country that has regular constitutional referendums). Yet, the illusion of neutrality prevails, despite some attempts to increase military cooperation and spending. The Irish Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, has also recognised the need to respond to the current geopolitical reality. The question remains how much these efforts will be constrained by adherence to official neutrality.
A time for pragmatism
The doctrine of neutrality is very much a product of the tumultuous twentieth century. Austria is the only country with an absolute constitutional statement of neutrality, an outcome of the post-war creation of the Second Austrian Republic after 1945 (the State Treaty of 1955 guaranteed neutrality).
Other countries are more pragmatic. Sweden and Finland, which like Ireland had strong traditions of neutrality, quickly changed track after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and joined NATO. Switzerland, since 1815 the world’s oldest neutral country, remains committed to neutrality in much the same way it is committed to its secret bank accounts. That leaves just Malta and Cyprus (the latter’s position being tied to the complicated relationship between Greece and Turkey).
It is surely time for Ireland, which is under no comparable constraints or claims to exceptionality, to face the changed nature of warfare in the twenty-first century and the changed circumstances of its Atlantic position. There are no longer any superpowers. As far as Europe is concerned, it is evident that the protective shield of NATO may not endure. Europe will need to find its own way, and this unavoidably involves re-armament. Twice in the previous century, the cavalry came to the rescue, but they might not come again. The war in Ukraine has changed everything.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: European Union
Discussion about this post