“We’re gonna give you a fair trial, followed by a first-class hanging,” was the most memorable line said by Sheriff Cobb, played by the great Brian Dennehy, in the 1985 western Silverado.
That quote could serve as the template for critics of the Government’s four-day Consultative Forum on International Security Policy.
The forum was pre-condemned before it began. The biggest lambasting was from President Michael D Higgins, who pointedly referred to forum chair Louise Richardson’s status as a dame of the British empire and spoke of “playing with fire” and of a “drift” away from neutrality.
He also said the speakers were composed of “the admirals, the generals, the air force, the rest of it”. The clear import of this was that the panels were dominated by military people, intended to nudge Ireland on a path towards more involvement with Nato.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The military people to whom he referred were retired senior members of the Irish Defence Forces (of which the President is the head), all of whom served with distinction on United Nations peacekeeping.
None of them made any argument over the first two days for Ireland to join Nato or to move away from neutrality. Most detailed their experience with the UN (in a positive way) but also spoke about the difficulties in increasingly complex conflicts.
The first two days of the forum, in UCC and in the University of Galway, were marked by protests, interruptions and disruptions by anti-war, pro-neutrality groups as well as by left-wing political groupings.
Their argument was that the forum was a “stitch-up”, that the make-up of the speakers was biased towards a particular world view, that its outcome was predetermined, that it was somehow pro-Nato, and that a Citizens’ Assembly would be a better way to proceed.
But when the forum got under way, many of those arguments did not stand up to the scrutiny of what was discussed. For one, it was arguably more open, accountable and transparent than a Citizens’ Assembly (which is confined to 99 participants and many closed sessions).
Secondly, it became clear from early on that ditching neutrality or joining Nato are not on the agenda (though some speakers did speak in favour of strategic alignments with Nato). Those who have strong views for upholding the status quo were given ample opportunity to ventilate their thoughts (veteran anti-war campaigner Margaretta D’Arcy; Sinn Féin’s Matt Carthy and Réada Cronin; MEPs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace; Lelia Doolan, and the President’s son, Michael Higgins.
By the end of the second day if one political imperative emerged, it was the future of the triple lock. The mechanism was introduced in the aftermath of the first (defeated) Nice Treaty amid concerns that Ireland’s neutrality would be eroded in a new EU arrangement. It is a protocol that essentially provides for Irish Defence Forces to become involved in overseas missions only if it is approved by the United Nations, by the Government and by the Oireachtas.
The UN component of the triple lock poses all the difficulties. One of the Big Five members of the Security Council, Russia, is involved in a brutal war and can effectively veto anything that is not in its self-interest. The veto has been exercised twice this century: first by China in 2002 to the proposal to deploy a force in Macedonia; more recently by Russia against an intervention in Georgia.
There are additional difficulties with the UN beyond the veto. The traditional concept of the blue berets going in as honest brokers no longer has the authority it once had. There have been situations in recent years (in Mali, Sudan and Central African Republic) where host countries have asked the UN to leave.
As former senior UN official and now Chatham House consultant Renata Dwan (who is from Athlone) pointed out, countries look to regional authorities for intervention in Africa and the Middle East, such as in northern Mozambique and eastern Congo, without any reference to the UN.
In other words, global geopolitics and the nature of the threats posed to international security are less simple, less binary. If nothing else, the forum – aided by the huge publicity given by the President’s intervention – has provided an opportunity to examine Ireland’s place in Europe and the world; the way in which the view of the UN’s role and legitimacy has evolved in certain parts of the world; and the new forms of threat that have emerged.
In the first two days there were eight excellent sessions looking at the international security environment; the impact of war between Russia and Ukraine; new forms of security concerns such as cyberthreat and those on maritime infrastructure; the important role of the UN and Ireland’s time on its security council; and an engaged discussion on the triple lock.
Richardson summarised the challenge this poses for Ireland, when speaking in the University of Galway on Friday. “[It has come up] how critical for our standing, but also our world view, is our size and our location as a small country on the edge of Europe.
“As a small country, we are very dependent on the international order of law and the rule of law. As a number of big powers have shown remarkable disrespect for international law, that makes us vulnerable.”
Speakers on both sides of the argument agreed that the UN can be unwieldy and complicated. Shane Ryan, an Irish diplomat based at the permanent mission to the UN in New York, spoke about how the dynamics between the permanent five members of the security council deteriorated during 2021 and 2022.
Ireland had pushed for a Syria humanitarian corridor that would impact on the lives of four million people badly in need of aid. He spoke of the difficulties of getting it through in 2022.
“Dynamics worsened considerably on the security council, to the point where it was much more difficult for a lot of the permanent five to sit together.”
But through perseverance and diplomacy, Ireland and others of the 10 elected countries on the council got it through.
Notwithstanding the difficulties, Ryan said there was “an abiding sense [as Ireland finished its stint on the security council] that it is still a vital part of multilateral architecture”.
As former UN official Dwan reminded the forum, Dag Hammarskjöld, its most famous secretary general, once said that the UN “was not created to bring people to heaven. It was created to prevent humanity from hell”.
“Often you find yourself saying, ‘Well, so what can I do? Can we address this conflict? Or can we try to mitigate the worst of the consequences on ordinary people and on civilians?’
“I think the security council remains critical for that, particularly,” she said.
Prof Edward Burke, a historian from UCD, also spoke about the changing nature of the UN, or global politics, and the successes and failures of Ireland’s time as a member of the security council. “In the late 1960s and 1970s, things were very polarised because of the Cold War. We’re not actually as bad as that now.”
He said the security council had evolved in terms of women in peacekeeping and dealing with issues of international law. Like Flynn, he referred to Ireland’s role in getting humanitarian aid to Syria and also being the “penholder” in the security council, helping to focus attention on the civil war in Ethiopia.
“Ireland and Norway successfully managed to get humanitarian assistance to Syria against huge opposition, initially from one permanent member state, Russia.”
The forum stems from Minister for Foreign Affairs and Tánaiste Micheál Martin. He has not disguised his view that the triple lock should be reviewed and possibly altered. He has pointed out that no new UN mission has been sanctioned since 2014. “Russia is increasingly using the veto. So it’s an issue that, at a minimum, deserves debate and deserves discussion,” he said in Galway.
There were some strong contrary views expressed. The most cogent argument for retaining the triple lock was made by Prof Ray Murphy, head of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the University of Galway, and a former army officer.
[ Irish neutrality: A tiny Riverdance of angels dancing on the head of a Fáinne pinOpens in new window ]
“The UN is the essence of multilateralism and if we act outside it we are weakening that very organisation to which we were committed,” he said to the forum to applause.
He accepted that it was difficult to work within the framework of the UN but that hard cases make bad law. He said the framework was the UN charter and why would Ireland do something that was counterproductive to it and would damage Ireland’s long-term reputation?
“I don’t think we should ever support something outside the framework of the UN.”
While the triple lock will dominate political discussion, there are new areas of economic activity where security concerns arise. Martin said the cyberattack on the HSE had been serious and posed a huge threat to the State. He also said that Ireland will depend more on the sea in future for wind power, for energy supplied through interconnectors to the UK and France, and through data cables laid on the sea bed that will handle 97 per cent of traffic.
In this case, the metaphorical hanging came first, in advance of the fair trial that is taking place now.
