A key speaker at the first Consultative Forum on International Security has rejected President Michael D Higgins’s view that there is a dangerous drift in Irish foreign policy that could lead to Ireland abandoning its traditional policy of neutrality.
Brigid Laffan, Emeritus Professor at the European Institute University in Florence, said she has always had great respect for President Higgins but she believed that he had erred in his comments.
“I always have had respect for Michael D but I think his intervention was what I would describe as intemperate.”
Prof Laffan said that President Higgins’s intervention had certainly drawn attention to the forum and that, at least, was “a good thing” because the issue of Irish neutrality and foreign policy needs to be debated, particularly in light of the new challenges arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
‘Puppets of Putin’: Dáil suspended amid heated row over junior minister’s comments
Ireland receives just €11.6m in EU defence grants despite contributing many times that amount to fund
Ireland ‘scrutinising’ Russian diplomats’ visa applications amid spying concerns
Varadkar attends ‘Davos for Defence’ for first time to discuss neutrality and push for Gaza ceasefire
“It’s one thing to make an intervention on broad policy but this was an intervention on a specific initiative of an Irish Government and there is a distinction between the office of the president and the Government which is in power – they are different offices with different elections.”
Earlier delegates attending the conference expressed mixed views on President Higgins’s intervention, with author Dan Harvey saying he had no doubt that President Higgins had overstepped his remit with his comments, and that he disagreed Ireland was drifting in its foreign policy.
The ex-Irish army officer, who served on UN peacekeeping missions in Lebanon, Kosovo, Chad and the South Caucuses, said “the personal view is not a presidential view and while I have no doubt there are people who support it, I don’t know that it was legitimate for him to say it ... we are in new, changed situation and we’re in far more difficult and dangerous situation.”
“There are huge numbers of new threats out there, they are interconnected – you have climate change making many of them worse, you have autocracies trying to stamp out democracies – it’s a far angrier world today than it was 10 years ago.”
Ireland South MEP Deirdre Clune of Fine Gael said she did not share the views of President Higgins.
“I think his comments about a drift towards Nato are absolutely not true – this is about a conversation and an opportunity to see where we are in a changing world because I see in Europe where I am, there is a real focus on defence postwar,” she said.
“And unless we are engaged internationally, we are not going to be able to protect ourselves so I think this consultative forum and this discussion is going to be very valuable – we are not politically neutral because we support EU level sanctions against Russia but we are militarily neutral.”
Author and historian Diarmuid Ó Drisceoil was attending the forum with a view to learning more and while he had some sympathies with President Higgins’s position, he felt he could have been more judicious in his comments.
“His comments about drift in our foreign policy, that’s why I’m coming along here today. I can see the world is changing and the military industrial complex and their influx ... that’s why I’ve come along today to inform myself.”
For veteran activist and peace campaigner Arthur Leahy, who was later ejected from the morning session, President Higgins was absolutely correct to raise concerns.
“I think it was a really powerful statement – we need people like that to make connections and speak truth to power because the powerful people in the land, they are just going with the dominant European agenda and that’s something I would fear.”
Solicitor Joe Noonan, who advised Raymond Crotty in his 1987 challenge to the Single European Act, was supportive of President Higgins’s right to speak, pointing out that constitutional law expert Prof Conor O’Mahony had said back in 2018 that the President was entitled to express opinions.
“President Higgins’s comments have kick-started a national conversation that would not have started otherwise and I welcome them whole heartedly – he himself has qualified one or two comments regarding individuals but I think the sweep and scope of his comments were very much on point.
[ The Irish Times view on president’s role: pushing at the boundariesOpens in new window ]
“I would encourage people to participate to the extent that the format allows, and I would urge the Government to take on board the public contributions in the consultation process because, as Edward Horgan said here, we have a tremendous future ahead if we craft it in our way in light of our genius.”
