Sir, – Ireland has participated in UN peacekeeping missions since 1958, but recent geopolitical events could place the country’s ability to be involved in future peacekeeping operations in jeopardy.
The triple lock, which requires Government agreement, Dáil approval, and UN approval before more than 12 Irish troops can be deployed overseas, came about because of the failure to initially pass the Nice Treaty referendum. During the campaign it was erroneously claimed that if the treaty passed, Irish teenagers would be conscripted into a European army to fight imperialist wars for the so-called military industrialist complex!
While this conspiracy theory has proven to be false, it lead to the Seville declaration requiring all Irish overseas deployments to have a UN authorisation, and at a second attempt the treaty was passed by the Irish electorate.
Problems soon followed when Ireland tried to send troops abroad for its own purposes. An 11-soldier squad could travel abroad, but a 15-solider squad could not. The rest of the world looked on in bewilderment at this self-imposed absurdity.
Owen Doyle: World Rugby should leave the lineout alone and fix the scrum
Oscars 2025: Was Adrien Brody’s speech the longest ever, was Conan O’Brien funny and eight other key questions
Anjelica Huston: ‘There was no shame to having fun with playing women of a certain age’
‘Where I come from, people don’t do medicine. It’s not on your radar’: how a new generation of doctors is being trained
It required the 2006 Defence Amendment Act to rectify matters by allowing eight specific exemptions to the triple lock for deploying troops overseas.
As a mature European democracy for over one hundred years, decisions on defence should be a national competence. The requirement to seek the permission of foreign powers in order to move our troops abroad is highly unusual. Far from safeguarding Ireland’s neutrality, it arguably undermines and weakens it. The move to amend the triple lock by Government is indeed welcome and overdue. – Yours, etc,
CONOR HOGARTY,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
A chara, – Is it not a little disingenuous for Tánaiste Simon Harris to insist that the State’s acquisition of fighter jets “will not affect Ireland’s ‘proud’ policy of military neutrality”? (“Plans to base combat jets at Shannon airport at annual cost of €100 million”, News, March 1st).
Surely the Sikorsky S-92, currently in use here, can do the job of “deter and detect”, as Mr Harris says, “airborne threats”?
The real questions must be: will the new jets be fully armed, and have the ability to shoot down and destroy perceived military threats, including those threats emanating from a “superpower”?
And will they be scrambled to assist Nato members if, as is likely, those members are attacked, or will our new fighting machines simply be left sitting on the apron at Shannon during a skirmish in the skies above? – Is mise,
PETER DECLAN O’HALLORAN,
Belturbet,
Co Cavan.
Sir, – Given the increasing global security threat, Ireland’s military neutrality is a luxury we can no longer afford.
We cannot expect other European countries (including the UK) to defend Ireland militarily if we were ever attacked, if we continue to refuse to fully participate in the defence of Europe.
Thinking we are immune from attack is naive and dangerous.
Even if we were never directly attacked, are we prepared to stop short of full military participation if our neighbours are? Humanitarian and non-lethal military support will not stop bombs, bullets, or worse.
Kicking the can down the road is also not an option. Ireland may need to decide very soon how far it wants to roll up its sleeves if “the coalition of the willing” security plan for Ukraine (as proposed by UK prime minister Keir Starmer and French president Emmanuel Macron) comes to fruition (“Starmer says Europe faces ‘historic task’ to defend Ukraine”, News, March 3rd).
The moral high ground, or saying we are too small a country, or fear as to how the US administration might respond, are no longer fit for purpose excuses.
It’s time to decide. – Yours, etc,
CHRIS FITZPATRICK,
Dublin 6.
A chara, – I am delighted at the Government’s move toward removing the UN resolution step in the decision to deploy troops abroad (“Government to move this week on changing triple lock”, News, March 3rd).
It is a farce that deployment of Irish forces could be blocked by the dictatorships in Russia and China in this day and age. Moreover, adding a newly hostile and increasingly autocratic United States to that list would leave our hands tied even further by antagonistic powers.
It would be wise to disentangle ourselves from the US in military and economic affairs, given the resurgence of Donald Trump, who shows blatant disdain for liberal democracies such as ours. – Yours, etc,
CONOR Mac DONNCHADHA,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – One of the tests of national sovereignty is the ability to defend one’s borders. We fail that test. Further, we insist on expressing our neutrality by having a failed international collective tell us where to deploy our Defence Forces. It is time to wake up. – Yours, etc,
AUSTIN HANLEY,
Athlone,
Co Westmeath.
Sir, – I understand the deeply sentimental loyalty which many of us share, including myself, for our traditional neutrality but isn’t the logic of substantially increasing our defence spending that it should be done most effectively as part of pan-European defence, ie by joining Nato, as other traditional neutrals, Finland and Sweden, have done? Isn’t Irish military neutrality well and truly dead?
And isn’t it time we had a proper, adult national conversation about joining Nato? Would it not also reinforce the cause of all Irish unification? Are our politicians brave enough to propose same? – Yours, etc,
DÓNAL DENHAM,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – On May 25th, 2017, in Brussels, Donald Trump intimated that American support for the defence of Europe could not be relied upon. It was a wake-up call. It’s a pity that Europe pressed the “snooze” button. – Yours, etc,
DONAL KNIGHT,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
Trump and Zelenskiy
Sir, – One doesn’t need to read too closely between the lines of history to reach an unpalatable image. In every war, it seems that, when former friends, neighbours or acquaintances are faced with threats to their lives and of those they feel responsible for, some people who could help will find ways to exploit the victims. I’d always struggled to imagine the conversations that took place as someone purchased artwork, a home, precious metals or jewellery at a knockdown rate from someone in fear of the lives of those close to them, securing more wealth from someone in existential dread.
Given the apparent enthusiasm of the current US administration for gratitude, I’d like to thank them for the fact that I need no longer try to envisage the nauseating spectacle of war profiteering, having seen it as a live broadcast. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.
Sir, – I sincerely hope that our Taoiseach seriously reconsiders any plans to invite President Trump to our country in light of the appalling scenes in the White House last week. Such an invitation will only be viewed and used as an approval of this administration and its policies.
It is clear from this event and the US vote in the UN with the US siding with a selection of autocratic regimes, that this administration is not going to uphold the values and principles that have served the western democracies so well or indeed stand by their allies.
Europe now stands mostly alone and must come together as never before, united in purpose.
Where would Europe be if President Roosevelt had treated Winston Churchill in the same way as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was treated?
Europe must give the heroic Ukrainian people and their brave president our lasting and fullest support, until a just and lasting peace can be achieved.
That peace should not be one that rewards the aggressor and the many war crimes that have been committed. – Yours, etc,
PAUL ADAMS,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I have noticed during follow-up media interviews both in the US and the UK, President Zelenskiy being asked if he will apologise to President Trump.
Since when does the person being publicly vilified and humiliated have to apologise to the bully? – Yours, etc,
DAVID GORDON,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.
Sir, – The Oval Office bore witness to a disgraceful dressing down of an embattled leader, not in the name of peace but in the name of the power of tyranny and greed. –Yours, etc,
AIDAN RODDY,
Cabinteely,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – If the Russian Federation’s irredentist policies prove to be successful, might the revanchist China and North Korea consider pursuing a similar strategy? – Yours, etc,
PAUL DELANEY,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I do not think that the problem was with the cards that the Ukrainian president had; the problem was the table he chose to sit at. – Yours, etc,
MARK O’HANLON,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
A chara, – I would like to wish the Taoiseach the very best of luck on his impending visit to the White House. I’m sure he will be a model of diplomacy. Nevertheless, I think it would be for the better if he didn’t extend an invitation to Mr Trump to visit Ireland in the coming years. – Is mise,
JOHN KELLY,
Bennekerry,
Co Carlow.
Sir, – Further to the White House contretemps, how refreshing to see what politicians really think of each other. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.
Sir, – Friday’s Oval Office spat was an opportunity for Europeans humiliated by exclusion from negotiations to salvage their self-respect. They took swift advantage: 18 leaders flew to London on Sunday to be photographed beside President Zelenskiy and make extravagant promises.
Tough talk makes good copy but this war has been a bloody stalemate since 2022. Any further escalation is foolhardy. Prolonging the slaughter to score domestic political points is immoral.
Worse than a money pit, this is a mass grave, getting deeper daily. Time to stop digging. – Yours, etc,
AIDAN HARTE,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – Your headline on Saturday has it that the interaction between President Trump and President Zelensky was a quarrel (News, March 1st). Inside the paper it is described as a “slanging match”. The AP news agency report you carried said that “tempers flared”.
All of this suggests that the episode was something of an even struggle between the two men. It was nothing of the sort. It was a disgraceful, unprovoked assault by a bully and his accomplice, who found themselves in a position to wield some power, on the very courageous leader of a country that is under terrible strain from an external aggressor.
Thankfully, the presence of television cameras on this occasion meant that I, and millions of other observers around the world, were able to see what happened. – Yours, etc,
SEAMUS McKENNA,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare.
Remembering Pat Ingoldsby
Sir, – I was saddened to learn of Pat Ingoldsby’s death; we will not see his like again (”Poet and broadcaster Pat Ingoldsby dies aged 82″, News, March 1st).
Whenever I visited the capital, I would make a point of seeking him out to chat and buy his books on Westmoreland Street. It was impossible to leave Pat’s company without feeling better about life; his sense of humour was an absolute tonic; and he never compromised his artistic or moral values either, nor did he smirk or act like he knew better than anyone else.
Pat embraced the quotidian in his poems; his love for people, their foibles, and indeed (especially) his own, was palpable; each poem was clear and simple without being simplistic, often with an unashamedly emotional power. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN WHELAN,
Moycullen,
Co Galway.
Chapelizod – the place to be
Sir, – In a recent article you refer to the fourth Viscount Rothermere owning a property in Chapelizod “of all places” (“Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere in a spot of bother with his Dublin tenants”, Overheard, March 2nd).
I am reminded of Mr Duffy in Joyce’s Dubliners, who lived in Chapelizod “because he wished to live as far as possible from the city of which he was a citizen and because he found all the other suburbs of Dublin mean, modern and pretentious” (A Painful Case). – Yours, etc,
BARRA LYSAGHT,
Chapelizod,
Dublin 20.
Inclusivity and the usual suspects
A chara, – An extraordinary and contradictory letter from Prof Des Crowley (“Diversity, equality and inclusion”, Letters, March 1st). He lectures us on “relentless targeting of minority groups” that “others them within the general population and provokes fear and resentment, stigma and discrimination.”
He then proceeds to call out and target the persecutors, the usual suspects, “privileged, white, cisgender, heterosexual men.”
He doesn’t see the irony that he also indulges in targeting and othering. – Is mise,
CIARÁN Mac GUILL,
Clichy,
France.
Royal treatment
Sir, – Miriam Lord refers to the Queen of England (“Minister for unannounced visits”, Politics, March 1st). There have been no Queens of England, regnant or consort, since the Treaty of Union with Scotland in 1707; during the same period there have been no Kings of England. Perhaps in future she should refer to the Queen of the United Kingdom. – Yours, etc,
CDC ARMSTRONG,
Belfast.
A sorry story
Sir, – There’s a positive epidemic over here in Britain of people on TV pronouncing the word “worry” to rhyme with “sorry”. This fascinates me. Can anyone explain it? – Yours, etc,
PAUL GRIFFIN,
St Helens,
Merseyside,
UK.
