Our neutrality should be defined and should not be a matter of intuition and a wink and nod, writes John Gormley.
'We all have an intuitive understanding of what we mean by neutrality, but we do not have anything like an appropriate definition."
That was the classic line delivered by Minister of State Dick Roche, at the committee stage of the Nice Treaty debate in the Dáil, in response to one of my questions. So it's official; Irish neutrality is now based on an intuition, a wink and a nod and what ever you're having yourself.
This lack of definition provides the present government with enough latitude to indulge in activities which obviously conflict with our neutral status. It means American troops and warplanes can use Shannon Airport in preparation for a war against Iraq with the full approval of our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen.
It also means we can sign EU treaties which have major implications for foreign and security policy, yet apparently have no effect on Irish neutrality.
It is a fact that our neutrality has been steadily eroded by successive treaties and by membership of NATO's Partnership for Peace to the point now where NATO refers to us, along with Sweden and Finland, as the "former neutrals". At least these countries have the good grace to describe themselves as "non-aligned", i.e. not members of a military alliance. Our government and the Yes side, on the other hand, persist with the term neutrality. They assure us that even the creation of the new political and security committee which will oversee an elaborate military structure and direct EU military interventions, up to and including war, is of no consequence.
They go even further by claiming that the Seville Declarations and the constitutional amendment guarantee our neutral status. These are deeply fraudulent assurances. There is no mention of the term neutrality nor the requirement for a UN mandate in the amendment proposed for the Constitution. The amendment also leaves the back door open for membership of NATO without a referendum, as it only refers to a decision of the European Council.
Given the scale of this deception, it is ironic that the Yes side constantly accuses the Greens and NGOs dedicated to peace and neutrality of misleading the public.
Writing in this newspaper last week, Fine Gael's spokesman Gay Mitchell stated that those of us who claimed that the EU treaties "paved a way for a European army" were guilty of scaremongering.
This is the same man who stood up in the Dáil on May 11th, 2000, and proclaimed that a European army had already been created through the Rapid Reaction Force, adding that it would require 240,000 soldiers!
Such inconsistency has been a feature of the Yes campaign on many issues, ranging from the new voting strength on the council, the loss of the automatic right to a commissioner and enhanced co-operation. But it is undoubtedly on the question of neutrality that the Yes side has been most disingenuous.
I RESPECT, though disagree profoundly with, those who argue that neutrality is pie in the sky and that it's time to get real. However, in the context of European referendums, this point is never made. It's always a case of " you can vote Yes and our neutrality will be fine".
How effective was the declaration on neutrality attached to the Single European Act? And how many people voting for the Amsterdam Treaty realised that it would lead directly to the creation of the European Rapid Reaction Force equipped with aircraft carriers, Patriot cruise missiles and fighter aircraft?
When these contradictions in the Yes argument are exposed, they quickly change tack. The horror of Srebenicia is invoked, the suggestion being that those of us who oppose the European Rapid Reaction Force are guilty of moral cowardice and are somehow culpable for these terrible atrocities.
Again, it is important that we examine the facts. The UN force operating in Srebenicia had a UN peace enforcement mandate which it did not implement properly. The Dutch troops failed abjectly in their duties, leading subsequently to the collapse of the Dutch government. The French general Janvier also failed to provide air support when requested to do so.
How the European Rapid Reaction Force, consisting of both Dutch and French contingents and operating under a UN mandate, could have fared any better is not at all clear. And yet the arguments of the Yes side imply this to be the case.
Neutrality does not mean standing idly by in times of crisis. The Green Party record in the Dáil shows that we have supported UN actions with a peace enforcement mandate in East Timor and other countries. However, our participation in the European Rapid Reaction Force and Partnership for Peace has already undermined our capacity to commit troops and equipment to the UN.
Achieving interoperability with other EU States will result in an increase in defence spending. Very recently, the working group on defence at the Convention for the Future of Europe met in Brussels to discuss defence issues within the European Union.
It was made quite clear that if Europe were to compete militarily with the US, which spends 3.2 per cent of GDP on the military, then EU spending would have to increase significantly. Already, the Belgian Finance Minister, Mr Didier Reynders, has suggested a federal military tax to achieve that aim. Ireland currently has the lowest defence spending in the European Union with 0.75 per cent of GDP, so it's clear that we have quite a bit of catching up to do.
But do Irish people really want to see their hard-earned tax going towards a European arms agency? Or would they prefer to spend this money on health, education, transport and the environment while continuing our proud tradition of UN service? If the latter option is more appealing, then a No vote on October 19th makes more sense.
The majority of us still value our neutrality, even if it is only based on intuition, as Dick Roche suggests.
John Gormley is Green TD for Dublin South East