Sir, – Dominic Carroll asks that “those who advocate a ‘pragmatic’ neutrality in close association with the US-led Nato ... pause for a moment to consider Iraq” (Letters, June 27th).
Nato is not “US-led”. The North Atlantic Council, Nato’s supreme political body operates on a principal of unanimity, with all members holding a veto. They’re not shy about exercising it either – Turkey is currently keeping Sweden in the waiting room to the consternation of every other member. As several Nato members were vigorously opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US formed an ad hoc “coalition of the willing” in its place. Indeed, the Bush administration’s preference for unilateralism was so strong that despite the invocation of Article 5 after the September 11th, 2001, attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan was conducted outside of Nato’s command infrastructure. Nato only became involved formally in 2003 to lend its support to international Security Assistance Force (Isaf) which was stood up under a UN mandate.
Similarly the Bush administration’s strong desire to offer Membership Action Plans to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 ran up against internal opposition.
Speaking of UN mandates, neutrality proponents have also been keen to point out our contribution to UN peacekeeping missions as some form of benefit of the policy. While Ireland is a significant contributor, we’re outmatched by Germany and Spain (Nato) as well as the Republic of Korea (a key US ally).
‘I feel like I’m in a war zone’: Hosting the Olympics is not all fun and games for Paris
Music festival tents: can you save money while saving the planet?
Autocracy, Inc: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World by Anne Applebaum: Disturbing account of strongmen’s links
‘We are caring for your parents like they are our parents - but we can’t bring our families here’
Spain was even a member of the aforementioned coalition of the willing. And yet, they continue doing blue helmet work as before!
Indeed, to say our peacekeeping work is effective because of neutrality is a non sequitur, because as the Government confirmed at the start of the invasion of Ukraine, we are militarily neutral, not politically neutral.
We are aligned with Ukraine against Russia now. We were aligned against Argentina during the Falklands. We were aligned against the Soviets during the cold war, and while we were discrete about it, aligned against the Nazis during the second World War. The difference between us and our allies is that they were willing to make a contribution in blood and treasure to collective defence against external aggression, whereas we were happy to free-ride.
As a policy, this is defensible on cynical cost-benefit grounds if nothing else.
It would be nice if neutrality advocates acknowledge that. – Yours, etc,
DARAGH McDOWELL,
London.