A Nato threat to Irish “military neutrality” has been controversial since partnership in the EU project was first proposed from 1960, but the government’s earlier rejection of the “Atlantic Pact” was criticised in the press as standing aside during the Cold War battle between democracy and totalitarianism.
As minister for external affairs, Seán MacBride rejected the Americans’ invitation to join Nato in 1949 because membership entailed recognition of the border in Ireland. For MacBride and his coalition colleagues, and the Fianna Fáil opposition, partition trumped any commitment to the defence of Western Europe. But some well-placed commentators did not welcome this refusal to participate in the alliance. The Irish Times, for example, described the political consensus around Nato as “childish” – in relation to partition, “voluntary co-operation with the forces of democracy” would do Ireland more good in American and British eyes than a policy of “sullen isolation”.
Alfred O’Rahilly, the president of UCC, opposed staying neutral in the event of a war between “communism” and “democracy”.
The Archbishop of Armagh, John Francis D’Alton, argued that Irish foreign policy should go beyond “colourless neutrality” given the persecution of the church in Eastern Europe. D’Alton had in mind the imprisonment in Hungary of Cardinal József Mindszenty, which the Dáil had unanimously condemned, as it had the imprisonment – for war crimes – of the head of the Catholic church in Yugoslavia, Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac.
Nato and Irish neutrality – John Mulqueen on a vexed political issue
Cardinal Red – Frank McNally on a cultural history of wind colour
Poison Pen – Frank McNally on the late-blooming Violet Needham, children’s novelist extraordinaire
From here to Timbuktu – Alison Healy on a byword for the most remote and distant place imaginable
The question of Nato membership became a topic of debate again in 1960 when the prospect arose of joining the Common Market. Almost all TDs now leaned towards a policy shift on the issue. The taoiseach, Seán Lemass, asserted that Ireland wanted to join the European Economic Community (EEC) and would do whatever was required on the question of defence. The Irish government would support the Western democracies in any conflict with the Soviet bloc, and, he remarked bluntly, “there is no neutrality and we are not neutral”. Two years later, seeking support for his membership bid, he stated that Ireland would “participate in whatever political union may ultimately be developed in Europe. We are making no reservations of any sort, including defence.”
However, the possibility of nuclear Armageddon spurred some elected political representatives to oppose entry into the EEC, whose six members were also in Nato.
Noël Browne contended that it was “impossible” to obtain “any categorical statement on the political and military implications” of joining the Common Market. He called for a referendum to protect what he termed Ireland’s “traditional policy of neutrality”. The Irish Times asked whether a referendum should be held: “If we are committed to the European defence programme – Mr Lemass says we are – let the people know that means in certain circumstances we will have to fight.”
A united Europe, the Cork Examiner noted, involved common foreign and defence policies. “If the shedding of neutrality, in the fullest sense of the term, is the price to be paid for [economic] survival – and that is the factor which the opponents of EEC membership seem strangely loath to take into account – then, it would appear, we have no alternative but to accept.”
Ireland’s application to join the bloc fell along with Britain’s, in 1963, when France’s Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain joining.
Fears over a relationship with Nato ebbed. But on the question of neutrality, a heightened public awareness of the State’s neutral status emerged over the course of the 1960s when Irish troops served in UN peacekeeping missions in Congo and Cyprus. For some, neutrality became a sacred cow associated with high moral purpose.
The question of making a military commitment to the EEC resurfaced in 1968 when the government renewed its bid to join.
Jack Lynch, Lemass’s successor as taoiseach, stated that such a defence pledge would have to be approved by the Dáil.
In other words, the policy of “military neutrality” could be reshaped if necessary. Lynch declared that in a war “between atheistic communism” and “our Christian way of life” then “we in this parliament would not be neutral, nor would the people of Ireland permit us to be neutral”.
Prior to the 1972 referendum on EEC membership the Fianna Fáil government stated that no defence commitments had been entered into. An inevitable alignment with Nato formed part of the case put by the Common Market Defence Campaign – we would see bases in “Shannon, Cork and elsewhere” – but the No lobby’s warnings of doom did not convince the voters, and 83 per cent voted in favour of joining.
Since then, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael-led governments have insisted that the State’s “military neutrality” remains intact, despite increasing co-operation between the Defence Forces and Nato following the end of the Cold War.
This raises a question: does this policy simply mean not being a member of a military alliance?
Last year in the Dáil Micheál Martin and Bríd Smith exchanged accusations on this issue – always going on about “Nato tanks in O’Connell Street” (Martin), and wanting to send “cannon fodder” to the European army of the “colonial powers” (Smith).
If this heated exchange reflects the debate on neutrality and the EU, such Cold War rhetoric needs to be discarded in favour of an informed dialogue about the current security challenges facing Europe, including Ireland. We need more light, and less heat.
