On the contrary, writes John Bruton, it could result in less democracy with judges, and not the elected Dáil, deciding crucial foreign policy issues
The proposal to enshrine some version of neutrality in the Constitution would tie Ireland's foreign policy up in black knots. As Gay Mitchell put it, it would "only give the judges the final say on these sensitive issues and would be dangerous". Seán Lemass would not have done it.
Let me explain why such a proposal will not be helpful towards the ratification of the Nice Treaty, something for which Fine Gael will be campaigning vigorously.
The defence of a country is a political question. As such, it should be decided by democratically-elected politicians who are accountable to the people through the electoral process.
Unelected judges, however eminent and talented, should not find themselves deciding foreign and defence policy on the basis of court actions taken about the interpretation of a word or a phrase that might have been put into the Constitution years earlier, and in an entirely different political and security context.
A sovereign state should not be forced to await a possibly prolonged court case before taking steps to defend itself in what could be a rapidly-developing security crisis.
The difficulty in drafting an appropriate constitutional definition of neutrality is well illustrated by an examination of the proposal of the Labour Party, announced on Friday. It was for a constitutional article that would say that "Ireland shall not be a member of any organisation or party to any international agreement . . . whereby it is bound to commit its military aid to the defence of another state or states in any circumstances which constrain the freedom of the State to determine in any case whether to engage in or continue such actions".
That wording sounds great. But, on closer interpretation, I believe it would actually allow Ireland to join NATO.
Unlike the Western European Union, the NATO Treaty involves only a political commitment, and does not legally require states to come automatically to the aid of one another. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty allows each member-state to take "such action as it deems necessary" to defend an ally who is attacked. This could include deciding to take no action at all. Furthermore, NATO takes its major decisions by unanimity.
It could thus be argued that joining NATO would not conflict with Labour's text because it would not in fact "constrain the freedom of the State to determine in any case whether to engage in or continue such actions". This is not what its drafters intended, but it is a point that would surely be brought up if the amendment is put to the Dáil, or to the people in a referendum.
I do not make these points to denigrate the effort that Labour has made to bring forward a constitutional text. Rather, I am simply demonstrating that attempting to deal with a complex issue through a short constitutional phrase is a hazardous business and is open to many, and to totally unpredictable, interpretations.
Labour might reflect on arguments it itself used subsequently about the introduction of a "simple" and "watertight" constitutional amendment on abortion in 1983. That experience surely shows how unpredictably a few words in the Constitution can be interpreted.
Nor would I favour the insertion of references to the United Nations in our Constitution. The United Nations operates on the basis of vetoes by Security Council members. Our Constitution should not place Ireland's defence policy in thrall to vetoes by the Chinese, American or Russian ambassadors in New York. In short, we should not tie up our national security in a legal morass. We should entrust the issue to elected politicians in the Dáil.
If Fianna Fáil accepts the Labour idea, it will be putting into the Constitution a policy in which one of its own best leaders did not believe. Seán Lemass told the Irish Press in July 1961: "There is no neutrality and we are not neutral."
European defence is too big an issue for Ireland to hide from behind a constitutional paper wall.
The US is now developing a highly risky doctrine of "pre-emptive" attacks on so-called rogue states. In these circumstances, the almost total dependence of Europe on the US for the intelligence and logistics of its own defence is very risky. That is why Europe should develop a defence identity of its own, so that it has some measure of independence from the US. Otherwise Europe could be dragged into the slipstream of some ill-advised American actions, because it is so dependent on the US for other necessary defensive purposes. Threats of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare by rogue states would not leave Ireland immune.
Our Constitution should leave the Government and Dáil a measure of freedom to protect the people from such threats in an intelligently self-interested way. The best thing for Ireland to do is to endorse the Nice Treaty, which, as it happens, has nothing to do with defence, and go on to participate in a cautious and careful way in the future evolution of European defence policy, while remaining outside NATO.
As Seán Lemass put it in July 1962, we should be "prepared to go into this integrated Europe without any reservations as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy and defence".
John Bruton is a Fine Gael TD for Meath, a former Taoiseach and his party's director of elections for the Nice referendum