Irish neutrality is absurd and cowardly

Hans Blix's arrival in Baghdad this week almost certainly presages a United States-led war on Iraq.

The chief UN weapons inspector will lead a team that must determine whether Saddam Hussein is attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In the unlikely event of Blix deciding that Iraq is not contravening UN resolutions, the US has signalled its willingness to act unilaterally. Hostilities will probably commence within four months.

As the drums of war grow louder, so do the plaintive cries of the Irish neutrality lobby. The neutralites complain about the fact that US military aircraft have been allowed to use Irish airspace since the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001. They complain that those same aircraft are currently being permitted to land and refuel at Shannon airport. And they complain -- or at least most of them do -- that Ireland voted in favour of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the declaration which precipitated Blix's trip to Iraq.

These actions -- and the first two in particular -- erode Irish neutrality, according to the protesters. That's true. So what? The shift is not to be mourned. On the contrary, a total abandonment of the self-righteous and hypocritical posturing that goes by the name of neutrality would be welcome and long overdue.

In recent decades, Ireland has grown up. Our society has become less cruelly conservative, our politics less atavistically nationalistic, and our culture less turgidly insular. Yet our infantile attachment to neutrality remains.

Real discussion about the issue does not take place. Neutrality is regarded as axiomatically good, and politicians of all hues assure the electorate that they will do nothing to weaken it. Lack of debate has meant the definition of neutrality has remained muddy.

Does it mean a refusal, under all circumstances, to facilitate the military forces of other nations? Is it less rigid, just denoting a refusal to join a formal alliance? Or does it simply mean that Irish forces should not be directly involved in aggressive action?

John Gormley of the Green Party seems to adhere to the first definition. In the run-up to this year's Nice referendum, he said that the presence of US aircraft at Shannon was "not compatible with Irish neutrality. It would be more accurate to describe us now as `non-aligned'."

The logic of this argument is that the only policy compatible with neutrality is absolute pacifism. Alas, pacifism, like most of the theories espoused by Ireland's most verdant Greens and most crimson Reds, is a great idea that doesn't work.

Still, while the pacifist position is inexcusably naive, at least it is internally consistent. There is another, more disingenuous lobby. It is comprised of those who accept that military action is sometimes necessary, but who seek to avoid the possibility of Ireland ever being involved in it.

Those of us who are not pacifists -- that is, the vast majority -- accept that military force, brutal though it may be, can stop despots from realising the most malevolent of their plans.

The Gulf War and the Nato bombing of Kosovo are the most obvious latter-day examples. There is not a single decent reason why Ireland should be neutral about campaigns like these. There are no ethical grounds for standing aside when an aggressor state invades and subjugates its neighbour; there is no virtue in refusing to intervene while a dictator attempts mass murder.

Neutrality is not an admirable principle. It is a mendacious means of ensuring that others do the fighting -- and the dying -- in the service of a just cause.

None of this alters the fact that it is possible to simultaneously believe that the policy of neutrality is risible, and to have qualms about a US-led invasion of Iraq.

Hypocrisy permeates the US government's rhetoric on the issue, suggesting that the Bush administration's prime concern is control of the abundant Iraqi oilfields. There are legitimate concerns about the likely effects of an invasion on Middle Eastern politics as a whole -- particularly in relation to the savage conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

And there is also a pragmatic question of tactics: is it wise to force a confrontation with Saddam, when a policy of containment seems to have worked adequately, and when he may unleash truly horrendous weapons if faced with the impending demise of his regime?

But these questions are all about whether we should support this war at this time. To answer in the negative does not alter the absurdity of making neutrality a cornerstone of foreign policy.

The most critical issue in the current situation is the primacy of international law. If military action against Saddam is approved by the United Nations, it should proceed. He has already made a fool of the international community by flouting a multitude of UN resolutions. If he continues to do so, he should face the consequences.

Ireland won't play its proper part, of course. But it should. Our politicians and `peace' campaigners talk of neutrality in glowing and grandiose terms. Really, it's just cowardice draped in sanctimony.

Niall Stanage is editor of Magill (Dublin Newsmagazine). He also writes for the Guardian (Manchester, England). His column appears fortnightly in Agenda (Belfast)

interesting - this "debate" in Ireland in some ways parellels the Canadian debate. While the author continues, in passing, to advance the notion that an attach on Iraq is essentially an oil grab, he still brings home the reality of the impractical and arrogant nature of pacifism in general and Irish neutraliy specifically

Let's address the real reason for Irish neutrality.

If the English are for intervention, the Irish are automatically, reflexively against it. That's all. For a large chunk of the Irish electorate, zigging when England zags is the sum total of foreign policy.

In recent decades, Ireland has grown up. Our society has become less cruelly conservative, our politics less atavistically nationalistic, and our culture less turgidly insular.

This statement tells all you need to know about the author. The issue is not so much "neutrality" as whether the Irish wish to have the decision to go to war decided in Brussels or New York.

Ireland won't play its proper part, of course.

I didn't know that Ireland's "proper part" was one of the things listed on the stone tablet that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai.

The Gulf War and the Nato bombing of Kosovo are the most obvious latter-day examples.

Interesting choice of examples for the author to use. The NATO bombing of Kosovo (and Serbia) was probably the most disgraceful episode in the history of that organization.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.