FORMER Taoiseach, Dr Garret FitzGerald, has said that he never believed that Ireland's neutrality was morally justified. But when in government he had to "hide" his views, as making them public "might have done more harm than good".
Dr FitzGerald told an Irish School of Ecumenics conference on Morality in International Politics" that at 70 he had now reached "the age of indiscretion" What he had to say about Irish neutrality and attitudes to Partition would be unpopular for some.
Dr FitzGerald, speaking last Friday, said he always found it hard to accept that Ireland's "opt out" from Nato was a "moral statement", although it could be justified in terms of real politik. He believed that neutrality had come about in a "morally dubious way".
For Ireland, the moral balance was in favour of joining Nato rather than opting out. But neutrality commanded widespread public support and he "always upheld it" when in government.
He remained "uncomfortable" with the State's present refusal to be involved in the defence of the EU. This could yet have "adverse consequences". But so far "we have lost nothing in material terms by neutrality", he said.
"If you join a Community which gives immense benefits and then say you are not willing to defend it, then it is hard to justify that position if you take the Community seriously."
On the question of Partition there had been "an amount of intellectual dishonesty". After Northern Ireland had been established as a political entity, attempts to make the British hand it over increased unionist fears and could be seen as immoral.
In 1949, when Ireland was invited to join Nato, there had been an attempt "to blackmail" Britain to hand over Northern Ireland against the unionists' will, which he found objectionable.
Dr FitzGerald said that there were also advantages to being neutral and "we should make use of them". He found this to be the case when as President of the EC Council of Ministers in 1975 he was more acceptable to the new Portuguese government as representing a non Nato state.
Prof Walter Carlsnaes of Uppsala University, Sweden, told the conference that Swedish type neutrality did not seem to be compatible with the EU if membership were to involve a common defence policy or common defence, as laid down in the Maastricht Treaty.
But Austrian and Finnish neutrality was more flexible, so "its compatibility with membership of the EU, cannot be logically excluded".
Ireland's neutrality seemed be "very similar" to that of Austria and Finland even if its roots were different. Their neutrality was decidedly international in orientation in the form of active bridge building between East and West".
Neutrality as a "peace promotive policy" within the EU could be pursued "without alienating - national electorates at home still in favour of neutrality (if only in name) or undermining the goals of the Union as at present formulated in the Maastricht Treaty," he said.