Sir, – We are neither neutral nor defenceless in the context of a Russian threat, imaginary or otherwise. We are clearly in the western camp, are members of the EU, depend on a Nato umbrella for defence, and have an air defence agreement with the UK.
Our so-called neutrality is simply a policy of non-membership of any military alliance while refusing to take any meaningful steps to defend ourselves, or deny our territory or assets to any belligerent in the event of war.
Whether this policy can be maintained in a changing, and likely more hostile, geopolitical environment, or indeed accepted, by our EU partners is a question that requires serious consideration by the incoming government
Eoin Ó Murchú's plea (Letters, December 4th) to rely on campaigning internationally for peace, disarmament, and an end to war might be considered somewhat unrealistic when assessed against the effective collapse of the postwar international security architecture based on the UN.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and US unwillingness to halt Israel’s actions in Gaza, have demonstrated that those dominant powers have no intention of being constrained by the UN Charter or niceties of international law, where these clash with their own interests. The incoming US administration is unlikely to feel any more constrained.
We should of course continue to campaign for peace along with countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and, like them, continue to participate in UN-mandated missions, where such can realistically contribute to international peace and security. Like them we also need to look to our own defences, and be prepared to act collectively with our near neighbours and trading partners in defence of our shared interests.
Currently we do not have the capacity to adequately monitor and assess what is happening in our airspace or sub-sea infrastructure.
Climate change and likely future off shore energy infrastructure make it even more imperative that we remedy this situation urgently.
The report of the Commission on Defence, which was accepted by the outgoing government, sets out the minimum first steps to be taken.
While I do not advocate Nato membership, continued participation in Partnership for Peace, EU Battlegroups and EU defence co-operation initiatives are essential if we are to improve our capacity to cooperate with our partners in providing adequate security in our air and sea spaces, as well improving Defence Forces’ capacity to participate with them in crisis management operations, where it is our interest to do so.
We might also consider increasing our freedom of action by removing the veto on our military deployment currently gifted by us to the US, UK, France, Russia and China via the so-called triple lock.
The unstable international environment and outlook will require increased security and defence spending and changes in policy.
We cannot, however, simply depend on the UN, goodwill towards us by all, and a policy of hoping for the best or a continued free ride from our trading partners. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL O’DWYER,
Clogheen,
Cork.