Tag Archives: Irish neutrality

Irish neutrality and NATO: The boot – or discussion – should be on the other foot

Editorials, Nonviolent News, ,

Paradoxically, being ‘neutral’ in life is taking a stand, particularly when it comes to politics and conflict. It may be a stand not to get involved, but that itself is a stand, a decision, and whether that stand is positive or negative – or indeed ‘neutral’ or impartial – depends on the context. In the case of Irish neutrality it is not only a stand not to get involved in others’ wars but also a stand for peace.

The military commander of NATO, Alexus Grynkewich, when visiting Ireland (why?) recently called for a debate about Irish neutrality https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2026/08/12/nato-chief-calls-for-conversation-on-usefulness-of-irish-neutrality-in-changing-world/ and that is good – if it is an open ended discussion and not a biassed attempt, like the 2023 Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, to go in just one – NATO and EU militarist – direction. The Irish government and establishment seem content to run neutrality into the ground and then say we need something different when what we need is a more dynamic, fearless and imaginative policy of active neutrality. Grynkewich was wise enough, or well enough briefed, not to call for or hint at a preference for an end to Irish neutrality, because of its popularity, but clearly would envisage only a debate leading in one direction.

But as well as that debate on Irish neutrality, perhaps even more importantly we could and should have a debate and discussion about NATO, its policies, history and actions, and indeed its very existence. Given that the EU is increasingly the European arm of NATO this is more wide ranging than Irish involvement in various NATO programmes without being a formal member.

The first point to make is that NATO holds nuclear weapons through the USA, France and the UK. Ireland is supposedly opposed to anyone holding nuclear weapons and has worked significantly in the past to limit them. But not only does NATO hold nuclear weapons, it has no policy of avoiding ‘first use’, a disastrous policy which risks global annihilation very directly. Nuclear weapons are also illegal in international law, a fact ignored by the powers that be. It is more luck than good management that we have not had nuclear weapon disasters, intentionally or unintentionally, since 1945. All of this makes collusion with NATO by the Irish state unacceptable.

A second point relates to NATO’s raison d’etre. It was set up in 1949 as a military counterweight to Russian/Soviet communist military power though its opposite, the Warsaw Pact, only followed in 1955 when West Germany joined NATO. But instead of disbanding, as would have been appropriate, in 1989 with the disintegration of the Soviet system it went on to look for new enemies – which it found in militarist Islamic fundamentalism before finding an enemy in Russia once again. There is a poster on the INNATE website https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/posters/ about NATO which states “NATO – Helping to create and maintain enemies since 1949”. There is a severe disconnect between what NATO was set up to do, as in its Charter, and what it actually does (see later in this piece).

Here it is relevant to discuss the general western, as well as NATO, approach to Russia from 1989 onwards. The failure to support Russia when things fell apart and rampant capitalism came to the fore, impoverishing most of the population, re-emphasised the old Russian desire for a ‘strong’ leader (cue Vladimir Putin); the adoption of western majority rule or majoritarian democracy (‘bolshevism’ in Russian as Peter Emerson would point out) supported the same direction. But, and this directly concerns NATO, the western promise made then not to expand NATO into eastern Europe was ignored.

Of course you can understand former parts of the Soviet empire in the Baltic and Eastern Europe wanting to be part of a military alliance to protect themselves against a possible Russian onslaught and enslavement in the future. But the encroachment of NATO on Russian borders created considerable unease in a country suffering unprovoked attacks from the west in the past (including under Napoleon, by the ‘Allies’ after the First World War, and by Hitler) – and also gave Putin excuses. A neutral buffer zone would have been a wise choice – and one which NATO ignored; this could have been used to develop neutrality more generally in Europe. NATO expansion to its borders was certainly one factor in Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. As we have pointed out on occasions before, the USA threatened nuclear war when Soviet missiles were based in Cuba in 1962; how was Ukraine being in NATO to be different in terms of a perceived threat to Russia?

But if we look at other aspects of NATO history it is also a sorry tale. NATO got involved in the disaster that was USA and western involvement in Afghanistan. Here is just one incident: “Following an alleged Taliban attack on a nearby police station, NATO forces flew overhead to ‘engage’ the militants. If the engagement includes bombing the area under scrutiny, it would be more accurate to say that NATO aimed to puree the militants. But in this case, the bombers mistook the children for militants and killed six of them, aged 6 to 12. Local police said there were no Taliban at the site during the attack, only children.” (Kathy Kelly quoted in David Swanson’s “War is still a lie”, page 263). The net result of western and NATO failure in Afghanistan was to leave a far worse situation than if they had never intervened.

NATO involvement in Libya in 2011 was also disastrous, and not just for Libya. Its culmination in the death of Muammar Gaddafi led to chaos in Libya, and the spread of militant military Islamism and more general destabilisation in North Africa. The UK was involved and a parliamentary report there subsequently concluded that the threat to civilians as a reason for intervention was overstated and that they didn’t realise there was a substantial Islamist faction within the rebels. So this was another case of shooting first and asking questions when it is too late.

There are also major questions about NATO involvement in Kosovo. While the international peacekeeping force may seem well-intentioned, and includes Irish troops, the 1999 NATO bombing campaign has a variety of questions to be asked including whether such NATO action exacerbated ethnic cleansing there, and the extent to which civilian targets were deliberately bombed, and civilian lives risked and people killed. Here, as elsewhere, NATO is acting outside of the geographical remit and definitions set in its own Charter, as it does in many cases acting illegally without or beyond a UN mandate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8q-curesvY NATO makes the rules up as it goes along without getting members’ agreement to change what it proclaims about itself.

A final point is NATO policy, adopted in 2025, for member countries to to spend 5% of GDP on the military (this increased from a 2% commitment in 2014!). This is obscene at any time but at at this juncture when the greatest global crisis is climate change and heating it is beyond obscene, and a dangerous distraction from the plight of poor and oppressed people everywhere. Such expenditure is next to crazy. And militarism contributes to global heating and pollution even if no guns are fired or drones launched. NATO thinks in terms of military ‘security’ when what we urgently need is thinking in terms of human security.

We need a discussion about NATO which the Irish government and establishment seem to think is a Good Thing even if they recognise Ireland will not be joining anytime soon – just cosying up as close as it can with involvement but without formal membership. It is not a Good Thing. It is a dangerous militarist alliance which belongs in the dustbin of history. It is based on outmoded thinking about military power, violence, conflict and war. Let’s talk about that and about positive ways of dealing with international conflict – and about conflict in general and for General Alexus Grynkewich in particular.

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.