Tag Archives: Irish neutrality

Five points on Triple Lock issues by Anthony Coughlan

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

INNATE introduction: Sometimes you can be wandering in the forest for so long you can’t see the wood for the trees. The issue of the Irish government, and in particular Micheál Martin, striving to get rid of the Triple Lock on the deployment of Irish troops abroad – as part of slowly abolishing Irish neutrality while denying doing so – has been simmering for a number of years. As a result we can be confused and forget. In this short summary of some of the background and issues, Anthony Coughlan sees the wood and the trees –

–

Five points worth thinking about in considering the Triple Lock and Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s latest proposal to abolish it –

1.     Ireland’s UN Obligations: Ireland is bound by international law and by the rules of its membership of the United Nations to abide by the UN Charter and every provision thereof, including the right of the permanent Security Council members to outlaw military operations they disapprove of, and authorise military operations they approve of, by unanimous vote under the Charter. In view of  this, talk of the veto power of  particular UN Security Council members being in some way a restraint on Irish “sovereignty” is sheer demagogy, legal nonsense and aimed at gulling the ignorant.

2.     Ireland’s “National Declaration” on Neutrality and the Triple  Lock: In 2002 the Bertie Ahern Government issued a solemn National Declaration by Ireland – always referred to with capital letters by the Government – to the effect that in view of Ireland’s neutrality policy the State would not engage in any foreign military operation involving more than 12 soldiers unless that was authorised by the United Nations.  This National Declaration was made because a majority of voters had  rejected the EU’s Nice Treaty in the 2001 referendum on that –  many of them out of concern at Nice’s effect on Irish neutrality.  The existence of the National Declaration and the Government’s Triple Lock commitment in it was mentioned in the publicity material that was sent to voters by the statutory Referendum Commission to inform citizens what the Nice Two referendum was about in 2002. This National Declaration by Ireland was supported by all parties in the Oireachtas at the time. It was formally responded to by the other EU Member States in their Seville Declaration of that year. These Declarations persuaded enough people to change their votes so that in the 2002 Nice Two referendum a majority agreed  that that treaty could be ratified, without any change being made to the treaty itself.  Ireland’s National Declaration and the EU’s Seville  Declaration were associated with the Nice Treaty when that was formally registered later with the United Nations.

3.     The National Declaration was repeated for Lisbon Two: A similar procedure was followed  by the Brian Cowen Government when a majority of voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008 and the EU Constitution that Lisbon brought into being – again partly out of concern at its possible effects on neutrality.  Ireland’s National Declaration on Neutrality and the Triple Lock was reiterated by the Brian Cowen Government along with some other issues. It was again highlighted in the Referendum Commission’s Explanatory Guide sent to voters on the occasion of the second Lisbon Treaty referendum in 2009.  Again voters agreed to the ratification of an unchanged Treaty, in part because of this Triple Lock commitment. Again the National Declaration was associated with the Lisbon Treaty when that was formally registered with the UN.  

4.     The Triple Lock commitment in this unique National Declaration by Ireland has thus acquired a constitutional or quasi-constitutional character: No Irish Government has ever issued a National Declaration like this on any other topic throughout the history of the State. The Triple Lock commitment set out in the National Declaration by Ireland and its use to influence the votes of citizens in the Nice and Lisbon Treaty referendums has given the Triple Lock such a constitutional or quasi-constitutional character that it cannot be constitutionally set aside by the current crop of Government politicians without  a referendum of the People. The attempt to repudiate the solemn  commitments given in it may also raise legal issues under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

5.     Abolishing the Triple Lock would have the unintended effect of subverting comparable commitments in any future Border Poll: Even if people deny that the Nice/Lisbon Triple Lock has acquired constitutional force by the manner of its adoption and use in two referendums, its repudiation by the present generation of Government politicians would be a profound breach of political faith with Irish voters past and present. It would mean, for example, that any constitutional commitments or policy guarantees that might be given to Northern Ireland Unionists in the context of a future Border Poll could be repudiated just as easily by a later crop of Irish politicians and would show that such commitments could in no way be relied on.  Principled and sensible politicians in the Oireachtas will be sensitive to possible unintended consequences such as this when considering what the Coalition Government is now proposing.

Shannon #CloseBases Sunday 22nd February 2026

Latest News, , , , , ,

 

World Beyond War Global Weekend of Action against military bases is happening around the world this coming weekend, and specifically at Shannon airport this Sunday 22 February 2pm to 3pm. Further details can be found at this link,  https://worldbeyondwar.org/closebases/
US military abuse of Shannon airport destroys Irish neutrality and makes Ireland actively complicit in war crimes and genocide.  This event is also the monthly demonstration at Shannon against US military use of the airport as a de facto military base.

READINGS IN NONVIOLENCE

Nonviolent News, Readings, , ,

 

l ‘Readings in Nonviolence’ features extracts from our favourite books, pamphlets, articles or other material on nonviolence and related areas, or reviews of important works in the field (suggestions and contributions welcome)

N-E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y

A song for our times by John Maguire

People are free to use this new song by wordsmith John Maguire as the struggle continues against the Irish government’s plans to ditch the Triple Lock on the deployment of Irish troops overseas and get even more involved with NATO and EU militarism –

John Maguire says – These are the words of a song that at least might lift the spirits a little in these troubled times.  It goes to the tune of ‘The Wearing of the Green’, which starts: 

Oh Paddy, dear, and did you hear the
News that’s going round?
The shamrock is by law forbid
To grow on Irish ground

–

The Government need all our help – they’re such a sorry band! –
So we’ve to spell out certain words that they don’t understand,
Or maybe they don’t want to hear, and simply won’t see why
Our policy’s N-E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y!
We knew we weren’t the greatest, but we tried to do our best,
Until our leaders said: ‘Let’s join The Big Guns of the West!
Let’s throw our values overboard, let’s really clear the decks
And join the Milit’ry-Industrial C-O-M-P-L-E-X!’


CHORUS:
We won’t sell it out; we’ll spell it out, and tell the whole world why
We’re sticking with N-E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y!

Some decades past, up in Belfast, our leaders worked for peace.
They used their wit, and did their bit to help the slaughter cease.
Then Tony said: ‘Peace has its price, and here’s ‘our Bill’, you see:
You’ll have to sign on the dotted line with NATO’s PfP.
We’re taking over the UN, we’ll use it when it suits,
But we’ll decide who’s wrong or right, and where we plant our boots.
Forget the UN Charter, we now make the rules, you see:
(Just not a word to Mairéad M-A-G-U-I-R-E!)’

CHORUS

We turned down Nice and Lisbon, and were told to vote again.
But  still we kept on questioning, so in desperation then
They swore to us ‘From the UN we’ll never turn away!
We’ll give you a T-R-I-P-L-E  L-O-C-K!’
That was their solemn promise, and they swore that it was sound.
Don’t let them take it from us: by their words they are still bound.
Let’s work to rescue the UN from NATO’s dire control
That’s the way to save our planet, that’s the way to save our souls!

CHORUS

Frank Aiken lecture new date, 2nd April

Latest News, ,

There has been a change of date for the Frank Aiken Evening previously announced to take place on 27th March. This will now take place on Wednesday 2nd April. Full details:

The Legacy of Frank Aiken
The Role of Small Countries in Times of Danger and Uncertainty – An Evening of Talks and Discussion hosted by Lex Innocentium, 21st Century  and  The Irish School of Ecumenics

Wednesday, 2nd of April 2025, at 7.00 p.m.
Room G16, Loyola Building, Trinity College Dublin

Speakers (in order of presentations): Dr. Stephen Kelly, Head of the School of Humanities, Professor of Modern Irish History and British-Irish Relations, Liverpool Hope University;    Dr. Patrick Bresnihan, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Maynooth University; Dr. John Maguire, Professor of Sociology Emeritus,University College Cork.

Lex Innocentium, 21st Century website is at https://lexinnocentium21.ie/

Editorials: Picking the Lock, Violence and nonviolence

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

Picking the Lock

The term ‘to pick a lock’ means to open it without a key using a device to open it without breaking or cutting the lock. It is usually for underhand or nefarious purposes. This aptly describes what the Fianna Fáil government is doing to the Triple Lock in working to remove it and open the Irish army up to the service of EU and NATO militarism. Fianna Fáil were not even honest in their election manifesto when they promised ‘sensible reform’ of the Triple Lock since the only reform they will bring is its complete destruction.

Micheál Martin and Fianna Fáil have been the frontrunners on this for some years now and the whole purpose of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy in 2023 was to provide an excuse to proceed. The fact that this ‘Forum’ did not work in the way it was intended was no deterrence to proceeding. It looked like the move might have happened before the election but now that Martin is ensconced again as Taoiseach means that a move is imminent. It is included in business for the spring session of the Dáil https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/319531/3760a815-ee4f-49ea-ba3b-e42244711ea4.pdf#page=null (see page 4)

The Triple Lock https://swordstoploughsharesireland.org/triple-lock/ entails UN, government/cabinet and Dáil approval for deploying more than 12 members of the Irish military abroad – but the Irish establishment want to fully integrate with, and have the army fighting with, the EU army. And since the EU, which began as an economic-led peace project, is increasingly a military project and the European wing of NATO, not joining NATO – which the bulk of Irish citizens oppose – is immaterial. In any case the Irish army is already cooperating with NATO through membership of the misnamed NATO ‘Partnership for Peace’.

Removing the United Nations support as an obligatory part of the Irish army being sent overseas means the government – which by definition has Dáil support – has no hoops to go through in committing the Irish army to armed action anywhere and any time. As the western world gears up increasingly for war through increased spending on arms and armies this is a sickening thought. And the EU is shaping up to become yet another military power on the world stage; as everywhere, the rhetoric may be benign but the reality is different.

It is almost beyond irony that Fianna Fáil, the party of Eamonn de Valera and Frank Aiken, should be in the forefront of ditching Irish neutrality. It is also fundamentally dishonest since the Triple Lock was introduced to get the Nice and Lisbon treaties agreed by the citizens of Ireland in referendums. Because, also dishonestly, this was not done as a formal protocol, no referendum is required to undo it. The honest course of action would be to hold a referendum on the issue but that will not happen since, Irish neutrality being popular with citizens, a proposal to radically alter it would be defeated. An Irish Times/ARINS survey (Irish Times 8/2/25) showed that even in the event of Irish unification only 19% of citizens in the Republic felt Ireland should join NATO (7% definitely join, 12% join) whereas 24% said it shouldn’t join and 25% definitely not join. But the leaders are taking their own path to militarisation.

The move to abolish the Triple Lock is a negation of democracy and may help get Ireland fully integrated with European war machines but it will do nothing for peace, in fact the exact opposite. Peace and democracy activists have been mobilising to defend the Triple Lock but it has been hard to get the issue the attention it deserves, not least because of mass media apathy or active support for militarisation and a clever game by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in denying anything is happening. The government should hang it head in shame at abandoning Irish neutrality and refusing to consider how it, neutrality, could be developed as a real and active force for peace in the world.

Violence and nonviolence in an age of uncertainty

Change may be the only certainty in life but we, as a human species, are not always good at dealing within it. And our ‘common sense’ response to it may not be sensible at all. Thus with Russia’s war on Ukraine and President Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop act in his second incumbency, we may react in ways which are not only unhelpful but actually detrimental to the cause of peace and justice.

The Western world is currently heading, in general, to the right and to increased militarism. More than one commentator has likened the situation to the lead up to First World War; then clashing imperialisms came to fight on the battlefield, and we already have the trench warfare in Ukraine, albeit with drones being a crucial weapon this time around.

The forces for peace can feel totally powerless when confronted with such massive pro-militarist action and propaganda. And such belligerence is backed by the mass media and some social media as well.

Powerlessness can be totally debilitating and push us into apathy. Instead we need to hold firm in our convictions and our work and be prepared so we can use any opportunities which present themselves to get or views across and to build the movement we need, in an alliance with other progressive forces, to bring transformation.

The forces of peace and nonviolence are not powerless, we should know that from Gene Sharp, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, among many othersi. But while we can make an impact with small numbers, to be successful we need to mobilise on a broad base and that requires cooperation across different sectors (trade unions, human rights, ecological, left of centre and so on), lots of preparatory work, a good tailwind, and seizing the moment when it comes. Awareness of the stages successful movements pass through (as with Bill Moyer’s Movement Action Plan) can help us plan and be prepared as well as perhaps avoiding depression when the going gets tough.

Editorial: Why?

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

In the Odyssey Centre in Belfast there is a children’s educational-entertainment or “interactive discovery” centre named W5 – standing for WhoWhatWhereWhenWhy. In this piece we are going to look at some “why’s” concerning both parts of Ireland with some very simple answers on different aspects of conflict.

Q1. Why has the conflict in Northern Ireland lasted so long?

A. Because conflict can be not only multigenerational but exist over many centuries. Despite all the changes which have taken place in life since the 17th century and the Plantation of Ulster, the two main groupings from then, cultural Catholics and cultural Protestants, continue as fairly distinct entities in the North. Of course there are ‘betweeners’ of various kinds, and opportunities for ‘betweendom’ are increasing, but they are a minority. The original conflict arose by settlers taking the land and property of the then native Catholic Irish as part of an organised takeover.

Q2. Why do ‘good relations’ and peace activists in the North believe things can change?

A. Apart from a commitment to positive change it is because they have already changed significantly since the start of the Troubles and especially since the Good Friday Agreement. The powersharing political arrangements at Stormont are not ideal, nor are they a necessarily fit for the long term, but they are a start, and are a vast change from the time of the hunger strikes, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, or indeed the ‘one party rule’ (elected) prior to 1972.

Q3. If peace came to Northern Ireland through dialogue, of various kinds, why have people not extrapolated from this to broader questions of conflict?

A. A difficult question. The British have certainly ignored how peace came to Northern Ireland in their dealings with Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine and elsewhere, and within Northern Ireland wanted ‘business as usual’, e.g. with military recruitment. Within the North, both nationalists/republicans and unionists/loyalists have not connected how peace came about with how they think of international issues and unionists/loyalists are especially prone to simple identifying with things ‘British’, including military policies.

Q4. Why do paramilitaries still exist in Northern Ireland?

A. For a variety of reasons. While participants in these may often think of them as a line of ‘defence’, others see them as a line of ‘attack’. The small paramilitary groups on the republican side are still committed to armed struggle for a united Ireland based on their belief that this is the only way, and justified by history. Loyalist paramilitary groups still exist in a much greater way; for individual members this may be a badge of meaning, identity and commitment as British – or of power and enrichment (for some leaders) through extortion and other crime.

Q5. Why have people from bodies formerly, or indeed, currently linked to paramilitarism not apologised for past violence?

A. To do so would be to disown their raison d’etre and undermine their existence. While there were some apologies at the time of the ceasefires, e.g. from Gusty Spence, paramilitaries and Sinn Féin generally refuse to apologise for using armed struggle since they regard it as justified during the Troubles. In addition, Gerry Adams and others worked to ‘take people with them’ in moving to discard the ‘armalite’ and this entailed not disowning the past. Individual incidents of violence are sometimes apologised for, but not armed action per se.

Q6. Why do those who still espouse violence (including the British state internationally) not see the possibilities of nonviolence?

A. A mixture of reasons including adherence to the cult and culture of violence (the perception of it efficacy despite evidence to the contrary) and a lack of imagination and creativity. Nonviolence is seen as weak and ineffective whereas violence is seen as the ‘strong’, natural option.

Q7. Why do a majority of young people in Northern Ireland want to leave if they have a suitable opportunity?

A. Largely because of the divisions that exist but also for economic reasons. In the Republic people are much more likely to leave because of difficulties in acquiring housing. In both cases this is a sad reflection on realities, where people leave for reasons other than ‘spreading their wings’.

Q7. Why is there not a majority for a united Ireland if cultural Catholics are now in a slight majority in the North?

A. Feeling culturally Irish may not trump uncertainties about a different kind of future, and the risks involved – better the divil you know than the divil you don’t. And some Catholics identify as ‘Northern Irish’ rather than plain ‘Irish’, and a few perhaps even as British.

Q8. Why has the Irish government, with its supposed commitment to a united Ireland, not made greater plans towards this end?

A. While some people have broached this, e.g. Leo Varadkar, there is also a reluctance to rock the peace boat in the North and a desire to let Northern ‘sleeping dogs lie’. However the uncertainties about what might eventually appear on the table do not help serious debate and consideration of the issues. In addition, most people in the Republic have not seriously considered what unification might mean – in terms of cost or political change.

Q9. Why do the older established political parties in the Republic (Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael) and the establishment support joining NATO or being a fellow traveller of same?

A. A number of reasons pertain including subservience to the USA (for economic and cultural-political reasons) and the totally false perception that to be a ‘good European’ you have to get militarily involved with EU and NATO militarism and the ‘defence’ of (western) Europe.

Q10. Why is the ‘Russian threat’ used as an excuse to advocate Ireland getting closer to NATO?

A. As well as Russian militarist expansionism in relation to Ukraine, NATO creates a divisive fear about Russian intentions and ignores the role it played itself in creating division with Russia through expansion in eastern Europe – which it had promised not to do. Aside from any international facilities (e.g. undersea cabling) which might be targetted by Russia as part of more general conflict, any danger to Ireland comes precisely because of identification with NATO.

Q11. Why does Ireland currently not not have a positive neutral stance, given its history?

A. Independent Ireland has a considerable record of positive neutral action from de Valera in the League of Nations, work for nuclear non-proliferation, military peacekeeping with the UN, and involvement in banning landmines and cluster munitions. However the establishment (in various forms) considers it should throw in its lot with the former imperialist powers in Europe as well as the USA. This shows a severe lack of both imagination and understanding of conflict and conflict escalation. See also Q9.

Q12. Why has Ireland, North and Republic, largely been a laggard in dealing with climate change issues despite the grave seriousness of the situation?

A. There are a variety of reasons. When something is everyone’s responsibility (in the world, but particularly the rich countries who have largely created the crisis) then it can become no one’s. It has not been a top issue for most citizens. And Ireland has seen itself as less at risk than others – despite increased risks of severe storm damage and the climate becoming like Newfoundland if the ‘Gulf Stream’ stops, and a worldwide cause of severe conflict.

Where are we going?

Nonviolent News, Readings, , , ,

“The pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war…but we have no more urgent task”   – John F Kennedy; 10th June 1963

By Liz Cullen

The Russian attack on Ukraine is widely regarded as having been “unprovoked”. While not, in any way, condoning the invasion, the expansion of NATO is the true cause of the current war in the Ukraine. There is irrefutable evidence showing that the promise made to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward”, after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded in 1991 was broken (1). The expansion of NATO as a cause of the war has been confirmed by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (2). This expansion of NATO has resulted in Russia being encircled. Estonia and Latvia, directly situated on the border with Russia, joined NATO in 2004, Bulgaria which also joined NATO in 2004 and Turkey, a member since 1952 are both on the Black Sea. The US has Aegis missiles in Poland since 2018 (3) and in Romania since 2016 (4).

In addition, long range US missiles are to be deployed periodically in Germany from 2026 (5). It seems that NATO is providing a basis for US troops in Europe, the USA has 750 bases in at least 80 countries (6), while Russia has 21 bases in 13 countries, most of them former Soviet republics (7). Furthermore, NATO is also “strengthening dialogue and cooperation” with countries in the Pacific and Indian oceans, namely Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Republic of Korea (8).

Aside from having an expansionist ethos, NATO also has a troubled history. As far back as 1999, NATO attacked Yugoslavia, without a UN sanction in a clear violation of international law. When NATO invaded Afghanistan in 2001, almost a quarter of a million Afghani people died during the 20 year war which ensued. In 2011, NATO with authorization from the UN security council, imposed a no-fly zone on Libya, but they seriously abused this resolution by overthrowing the Libyan government. Thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands were forced to flee. The three most powerful NATO states, US, Germany and UK are all actively supporting Israeli war crimes and genocide in Gaza, in clear contravention of the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, and rulings by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

NATO is also a nuclear armed organization; their website proclaims that “Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities for deterrence and defence, alongside conventional and missile defence forces” (9). The description of NATO by Professor Jeffrey Sachs as “a clear and present danger to world peace, a war machine run amok” (10) is appropriate. Nevertheless, the European Council stated in August 2024, that NATO is an “essential partner of the EU, sharing the same values and strategic interests” (11).

The Triple Lock ensures that Irish troops over twelve in number cannot take part in overseas missions without the approval of the Cabinet, the Dáil and the United Nations. It is a protection for Irish people against being involved in EU and NATO military activities. Minister Martin’s moves to abandon the Triple Lock is shameful. Many of the voters who rejected the Nice treaty in 2001 did so because of concerns that we would become militarily involved with the EU. However, we were assured by the government that such fears were unfounded, and that we would have the safety of the Triple lock. Therefore, Ireland would not become militarily involved with the EU. This is the reason why many people subsequently voted yes in 2002 when the referendum was re-run.

Similarly, the Lisbon treaty was rejected in 2008, again over fears in relation to the military implications. However the treaty was passed when the referendum was re-run following reassurances from the government about the Triple lock. Minister Martin’s actions to abolish this safeguard are a shameful betrayal of the trust of the Irish people, who have consistently shown their support for peace-making and neutrality.

A cause of further concern, is that Ireland, a country with a constitutional obligation to be a peacemaker, is a member of the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), which is strongly connected to NATO. An obligation under PESCO is that we must ensure that our forces have “interoperability with NATO”, and annual assessments will be conducted to ensure this. We have also committed to “make the European defence industry more competitive”.

Following on from this, the Department of Defence had an “information and networking event” (12) in the Aviva stadium in 2022 titled “Building the Ecosystem”. The purpose of this event was to introduce small businesses and third level institutions in Ireland to arms manufacturers. It was addressed by the CEO of Thales, the biggest arms manufacturer in Ireland, producing missile systems for export. It seems that the response of a neutral country is not to disarm and demilitarize, but to accelerate the promotion of war and the war industry (13).

Irish people do not want to become militarily involved in overseas conflicts, and successive polls have shown this. It is therefore very unlikely that the Irish people would support membership of an organization such as NATO and the use of nuclear weapons.

This is a crucial and dangerous time in world politics. A senior NATO official recently said that governments should be talking to their citizens about mobilization, more reservists and even conscription (14). Therefore the onus has never been as great on the government to do the right thing – to fulfil our constitutional obligation to be peacemakers and to stand up for the wishes of the Irish people. NATO has little to do with peace and everything to do with supporting the international arms industry. It is too closely allied to the EU and it is dragging us into the shadow of a nuclear apocalypse.

At the very least, we should undertake the following three actions:

  1. We must keep the triple lock

  2. We must leave PESCO without delay

  3. We must stop supporting US military planes in Shannon airport by allowing them to refuel there.

The great peacemaker Daniel O’Connell, said “Nothing is politically right which is morally wrong”. It is morally wrong for Ireland not to negotiate for peace, to support the close EU/NATO arrangement and to betray the expressed wishes of the Irish people to remain neutral. Being neutral does not mean being silent.

–

Footnotes

(1) The War in Ukraine Was Provoked – and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace – Jeffery D Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

(2) NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine – Jeffrey D Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

(3) These are the missile defence systems the US sent to Poland – CNN Politics

(4) A Decade of US-Romanian Missile Defense Cooperation: Alliance Success – RealClearDefense

(5) US Cruise missiles to return to Germany, angering Moscow – bbc.com

(6) Infographic: US military presence around the world – Infographic News – Al Jazeera

(7) List of Russian military bases abroad – Wikipedia

(8) NATO – Topic: Relations with partners in the Indo-Pacific region

(9) NATO – Topic: NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy and forces

(10) NATO – What you need to know, OR Books London and New York, 2024

(11) EU-NATO cooperation – Consilium (europa.eu)

(12) Building the ecosystem – Identifying connections for collaboration in Security, Defence and Dual technologies (www.gov.ie)

(13) Peace Groups to protest at Government Arms Fair at Aviva Stadium – Afri, Action from Ireland

(14) Are we heading for World war Three – and is Britain’s military ready? Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank.

Editorials: The race against racism, Not being neutral on neutrality

Editorials, Nonviolent News, , ,

The race against racism

The ugliness of racism has been all too evident in Ireland over the summer with slightly different manifestations in the two jurisdictions on the island. In the Republic the now established norm, requiring only a small number of perpetrators, is to burn and destroy buildings which are perceived to be, or actually are, for refugees and international protection migrants. In the North, because of the legacy and presence of sectarian violence and paramilitarism, there are more physical attacks directly on people because of their skin colour or perceived religion (not necessarily correct in relation to the latter as when a restaurant owner of Nepalese Hindu origin, employing ten people, was burnt out and ‘Muslims out’ daubed on the walls). We are lucky there were no racist killings recently.

The tie up between racist attacks and far right activists is all too plain to see through social media and ‘facts on the ground’. In the North there is also the connection to some loyalist paramilitaries; racism is present in Catholic/Nationalist communities in the North but nationalism has the advantage, in relation to racism, of being at least theoretically inclusive – ‘everyone’ is, or is invited to be, part of the Irish nation (the reality can, of course, be rather different). Loyalism has the disadvantage in relation to racism of being more exclusive, ‘what we have we hold’. Racism and sectarianism are perhaps not evil twins but certainly evil cousins or even step-siblings.

Ireland, the Republic, has undergone perhaps the fastest transition in Europe from a very high level of people born in the country to a situation of around a fifth of people being born outside the state. It has been good for the country in a variety of ways and the Irish experience of emigration has, until relatively recently, meant that most people appreciated that people had excellent reasons, in some cases survival, for coming and would make a positive contribution to society.

What racists and the far right have sought to do is to exploit two things: unfair distribution of resources (housing and facilities) and incidents where migrants have been involved in violence. In the case of the latter, it does not matter whether mental illness or other mitigating factors are involved, it is a coat on which to hang their right wing and violent ideology. Inequality and poverty are exploited by racists and the far right to scapegoat migrants when the issue is both long term and shorter term deficiencies in governmental planning and action.

Of course governmental policies are not the cause or source of racism but they can exacerbate it. The Irish government has learnt, hopefully, that depriving a local community of its only hotel to use to accommodate migrants is not a good move as it deprives local people of needed facilities. Of course there is a major housing crisis in the Republic, especially Dublin, but it is due primarily to economic success. And who will do the jobs Irish people may no longer wish to do or fill in the gaps in health and social care systems? Migrants of course.

There are many things which civil society can do in relation to countering racism, and most are being done though there is always the need for more people to be involved. One is get to know and support migrants in integrating with local society while allowing them to retain what they wish of their own identity. A second is educating, in a broad sense, people about why migrants have come and what they bring. Racists sometimes use facile slogans such as “Ireland is full” – yes, there are issues in relation to housing, which are fixable, but ‘full’? There were still more people on the island before the Great Famine and there are many countries far more densely populated than Ireland.

A related matter, in terms of education, is to help people be aware of the history and cultures of the places where migrants come from. ‘We’ can have a very insular view of culture and development – do we know, for example, about the role of India in the development of mathematics https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/01/hidden-story-ancient-india-west-maths-astronomy-historians or the role of China in innovating so much over the millennia? Our Western-centric view of civilisation is not only false but dangerous in giving ‘us’ western Europeans an inflated view of our own importance.

Criticism has been voiced of the police/PSNI failure to take a more pro-active stand in relation to racist attacks. Regarding violence in Belfast at the start of August, Patrick Corrigan of Amnesty International said “An unlawful procession, including masked men clearly intent on violence, marauded across the most ethnically diverse part of Belfast, attacking communities and businesses as they went – and the PSNI did not stop them. There are serious questions for the police, who publicly declared they were prepared, but then failed to protect already vulnerable communities.” While such situations are not easy for the police to deal with both imagination and firmness are needed and many people from ethnic minorities in Belfast and other parts of the North, especially Antrim, have been left in fear (and may leave in fear).

In times of racist violence there are also actions which civil society can, and does, take. Expressing solidarity with neighbours and giving our presence at anti-racist and inclusivist demonstrations are two such things. Actively standing out in the street, and intervening to help stop racist violence when tensions are high and things are actually happening in places or people being targetted, is more risky but necessary (and took place in Belfast recently). Monitoring and accompaniment may be appropriate tools but so can active intervention to form protective lines or challenge violent behaviour. The problem is also that anti-racists cannot be everywhere and racists can target anywhere, or anyone, in the middle of the night or at least when no one else is around. Nonviolent training and tools are potentially vital in these kinds of situations particularly when some anti-racists can also engage in antagonising behaviour such as shouting abuse at racists – this merely ups the tension and potential for violence.

Local and European elections in the Republic did not show the far right and racists to be a significant force but they are there, and through violence then can exert a felt presence they could not through more peaceful and democratic means. We cannot ‘root out’ racists since they are part of the community. What we can do is educate people in the realities of the world and the contribution migrants make but also point out the relatively small number of refugee seekers coming to Ireland – which also needs workers.

The race against racism is not a sprint but a marathon. There always has been racism in Ireland and Irish people themselves have been both subject to, and perpetrators of, it. We need strategies and tactics for a long haul which will show the humanity of migrants and allow Irish people to enjoy and benefit from what they bring.

Not being neutral on neutrality

The lead news item in this issue reveals just how close Irish neutrality in any meaningful form is to being binned. Micheál Martin in particular has been gunning (sic) to fully join Ireland with EU and NATO militarism – and regarding NATO, Ireland is definitely a ‘fellow traveller’ – full NATO membership may not be on the cards but participation at a high level is possible without that. It is remarkable how far Ireland has travelled from the principles held by former leaders, including Eamon de Valera and Frank Aiken – ironically both of the same political party as Micheál Martin.

The homogenisation of EU military and foreign policy leaves limited scope for manoeuvre but there is considerable scope for action. Ireland has been more outspoken on the massacres happening in Gaza while it has been tardy in actually taking action, and has refused, despite some soundings, to inspect US military flights stopping over at Shannon Airport. Of course as a neutral country there should be no military flights there but the craven subservience to the USA in refusing to inspect military planes is an insult not just to peace but to any idea of Irish sovereignty.

The Irish government has consistently refused – including at the (so called) Forum on International Security Policy in 2023 – to look at possibilities of developing and extending Irish neutrality. The sky is the limit to the role Ireland could play for peace in the world, and as a relatively rich country it has the wherewithal to engage meaningfully on many different issues and situations while avoiding an imperialist “we have the answers” approach. The opportunity is there and the history of Irish contributions to peace sets a great precedent. It is the lack of imagination which is particularly galling along with the willingness to back the former imperialist powers in NATO and the EU. It is a very sad situation.