After a slow start to the 34th Dáil, neutrality is now the topic du jour. In a relatively unfounded tradition dating back to ‘The Emergency’ (World War II), Ireland claims to be a neutral country. Even politicians understand how farcical the claim is. The term ‘militarily neutral’ is most commonly used. In other words, Ireland is the loudmouthed weedy kid in the schoolyard who shouts insults but runs away from the ensuing fight. Unlike Austria, Malta, and Switzerland – the three other neutral European countries – Ireland’s neutrality has a shaky legal foundation and zero military strength to back it up. Ireland’s neutrality essentially does not exist. The debate over the Triple Lock is therefore a pointless distraction from the Government’s responsibility to increase its defence spending.
Comparing Neutrality
The International Institute for Security Studies notes that developed countries typically have 2-3 active military personnel per 1,000 during peacetime. Ireland is the only European country with a neutrality policy to fall below this standard.
Austria
Austria enshrined neutrality in its constitution. Originating as a buffer zone between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, the country’s permanent neutrality was a condition of its independence post-World War II. A similar situation in practice to Ukraine after the fall of communism. Austria has a policy of armed neutrality, supported by conscription. This means that the country can defend itself if attacked. Its 23,000 strong active military amounts to 2.6 personnel per 1,000. Austria’s policy of neutrality is supported by its ability to enforce it.
Malta
Malta also has a constitutional neutrality policy. Similar to Ireland, its neutrality arose from a desire to distinguish itself from Britain. However, Malta is strategically located in the Mediterranean. Historically, its earliest settlers were pacifists due to the absence of any violent threat on the remote islands. During World War II, it became the most bombed place on Earth. It is this history which guides its armed neutrality policy. Malta has an active military of 1,800 or 3.3 per 1,000. A small group numerically, this is an exceptionally large army for the half-million population.
Switzerland
The 17th Century Treaty of Westphalia established Switzerland’s neutrality. Additionally, it is an enclave within the EU, with all neighboring countries (except neutral Austria) being members of NATO. It is unlikely that its neutrality would be breached. There is little benefit to the EU or NATO to infringe on a centuries-old neutrality policy in a country with no adversarial neighbors. Similar to Austria, Switzerland’s army is supported by conscription. With massive reserve forces, the standing army of Switzerland is 20,000 or 2.2 per 1,000.
Ireland
Ireland, however, has no strict legal basis for its supposed neutrality. After the fight for independence, Ireland adopted a policy of neutrality during World War II, albeit heavily favoring the Allied forces. Only in the early 21st Century did Ireland’s neutrality move from a political policy to a pseudo-legal one. Between EU treaty carve-outs (Nice and Lisbon with the Seville Declarations) and the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, the Triple Lock system has some basis in law. It is not, however, a constitutional measure. Ireland’s small force of 8,500 or 1.7 per 1,000 is comparable to New Zealand. With 9,000 active personnel (1.76 per 1,000), New Zealand is aided considerably by its remoteness in the Pacific Ocean. Ireland, however, has land and sea borders with the UK (its former colonizer) and with it, NATO.
As the first stop for aircraft traversing the Atlantic Ocean, Ireland has long been a refuelling port for North American troops en route to Europe or the Middle East. An under-armed Ireland is, therefore, at the mercy of its neighbors. In recent years, Ireland has come under military threat from Russia. With a virtually non-existent military, it took the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation to avoid escalated conflict. The Government had no capacity to do so. This concerning reality, though, does not stop the Government from engaging in wars of words with every major power in the world.
The purpose of neutrality
Ireland’s neutrality is as much – if not more – a result of its inability to defend itself as it is a political policy. Neutrality is beneficial for a country seeking to promote trade without minimizing enemies. This stance allows for Ireland to maintain strong and lucrative trade relationships with both the US and China, for example. However, as the new US administration may soon show, this requires political neutrality more than military neutrality.
Ireland has no political neutrality
While contributing only “non-military aid”, Ireland sides with NATO on Ukraine but is a bigger advocate for Palestine than any other European country. Ireland risks losing allies with this stance. It has already complicated its relationship with Israel, a significant trading partner. It is wholly unlikely – but not impossible – that continued political agitation against foreign powers could result in an attack on Ireland. As an unaligned, non-NATO member, it would have no support. It is uncertain how Art 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty would be enforced given Ireland’s carve-outs. In any case, the EU has yet to formalize military alignment, rendering it an insufficient hedge against any possible attack on Ireland anyway.
The Triple Lock
Ireland’s particular neutrality relies on the Triple Lock. Like Malta, Ireland’s neutrality originated with its desire to distinguish itself from the UK. But the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council which is the third lock on Ireland’s neutrality. Ireland is, therefore, still reliant on the UK for the deployment of its military. The UN specifies four conditions for sovereign statehood, one of which being independence of other countries for both internal and external affairs. One could convincingly argue, therefore, that Ireland is not sovereign. Ireland is arguably a vassal state reliant on China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US – plus any temporary Security Council members – to deploy its military.
A path forward
Ireland must, therefore, roll back the triple lock neutrality policy to ensure its sovereignty. Ireland cannot claim to be neutral when its military is beholden to five of the biggest powers in the world. The state must also increase its military spending to maintain a reasonably-sized standing army. An extra 2,000-3,000 personnel would allow Ireland to conduct foreign affairs in a more believable way. It would also put more force behind its posturing if Ireland were willing to put boots on the ground in the countries it supports. To acknowledge that Ireland is not, in fact, neutral is not to necessitate NATO membership. It would merely rid the debate of a red herring and allow real discourse to take place.
