Vagueness over our neutrality comes at a price, argues Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent
For several years, the Government lobbied hard in corridors of power around the world to secure a place on the United Nations Security Council, and was mightily pleased when it found itself on the 15-member body.
During two years at the top table in New York, Ireland's UN Permanent Representative, Richard Ryan, performed earnestly and well, even if Ireland's diplomatic stand was rarely foremost on the lips of power brokers.
In the Dáil on Thursday, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said: "I regret that Ireland's term on the Security Council concluded at the end of last year and that we were consequently unable to assist in the efforts to implement Resolution 1441.
"I do not know whether we could have helped resolve the divisions that emerged, but it has been frustrating to watch the unanimity which prevailed on the adoption of Resolution 1441 give way to division and recrimination."
Given the way that he has sat on the diplomatic fence to avoid spelling out the status of Shannon Airport and Irish air space in the event of a US-led war, Ahern must surely have had his tongue firmly in his cheek.
The first major crisis of the new century, the war on Iraq has brought into stronger focus than ever before what neutrality means both to Ireland and the world at large. And the Government, or its successors, will undoubtedly be faced with similar moral choices in a world troubled by conflicts between states - or between states and non-state organisations such as al-Qaeda.
Indeed, the "pre-emptive strike" doctrine now in vogue in a White House consumed by the legacy of September 11th makes such conflicts inevitable, particularly if the US emerges speedily victorious from the Iraq conflict. Last September, President George W. Bush outlined the new decree, when he said: "The US and countries co-operating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases."
He went on: "Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We will build defences against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will co-operate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies."
Critically, he then went further: "And, as a matter of common sense and self-defence, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies' plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation.
"History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the New World we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action."
Under the Constitution, following a change agreed by the public in the Nice II referendum, the Government is prevented from joining any common defence alliance established by the European Union.
However, the constitutional bar is narrowly defined. In the past, such freedom has allowed successive Irish governments to trim and tack according to the international political winds of the day.
In stark contrast to the Irish example, the Austrian government is given zero room for movement under its 1955 constitution, which was passed after the 10 years of post-war occupation by the Allies and the Soviet Union ended.
Article I (1) of the Austrian constitution states: "For the purpose of the permanent maintenance of her external independence and for the purpose of the inviolability of her territory, Austria, of her own free will, declares herewith her permanent neutrality which she is resolved to maintain and defend with all the means at her disposal."
It goes on: "In order to secure these purposes, Austria will never in the future accede to any military alliances nor permit the establishment of military bases of foreign States on her territory."
The Austrian text is clear, coherent, and incapable of misinterpretation.
Unlike Austria, Ireland has freedom to manoeuvre under the Constitution, but we may find that that comes at a price. Given our own vagueness on what neutrality means, it will be increasingly difficult for us to fend off requests for support for the foreign forays of usually friendly countries.
During the second World War, the Free State was "neutral on the side of the Allies" when Eamon de Valera made a judgment about where Ireland's best interests lay. Few would now argue that he was wrong.
However, de Valera operated in a different time. Domestic debate was stifled by Frank Aiken's ruthless and arrogant use of the censorship laws, when even the speeches of Fine Gael TD James Dillon went unreported.
Today, the Government operates in a world of immediate communication and speedy, often hasty, judgments, which are subject to fickle change depending on the latest headline.
Many would agree with the Government's view that Ireland had to decide to keep Shannon open to the US military, since a contrary move would be judged a hostile act by Washington. However, the Government's argument that its decision on Shannon has no implication for Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality is nonsense.
The only thing Ireland could do to aid the US war effort - bar sending some Irish soldiers under a UN flag to the Gulf once the conflict is over - is to let it use Shannon and Irish air space.
So, Ireland is standing beside the United Nations, standing beside the United States, standing behind the United Kingdom, standing beside the European Union. Such flexibility would test a gymnast.
Opinion poll after opinion poll has indicated that Irish voters hold neutrality dear, though oftentimes it is evident that the public at large has the same á la carte attitude towards it as the Government.
Once this crisis is over, we in Ireland must surely sit back and examine our definition of neutrality in much the same way as we have delved into our membership of the European Union using the National Forum of Europe.
In the new world order, Ireland will more frequently have to choose sides, whether we want to or not. It would be best if we did so deliberately, knowing exactly what Irish neutrality means, both to ourselves and to everybody else.
