.jpg)
In the debate over whether Ireland should increase its defence spending, Adam Behan argues for an increase as Beth Clifford argues against an increase
No to Increased Defence Spending Beth Clifford
Ireland has long been associated with its stance as a militarily neutral country. In a poll conducted by Ireland Thinks in January, it concluded that the vast majority of citizens across all age groups and political parties support military neutrality. Irish people seek the promotion of peace and refuse to be made facilitators of, or stakeholders, in bloody wars.
Ireland’s personal experience of being subject to imperialism, occupation, and invasion has given its people a strong sense of opposition to war. Our steadfast advocacy and support for self determination and universal human rights around the world is a direct result of our past. From a nation once subjugated and violently divided, to a stable and peaceful one today, what Ireland represents is that peace is possible and it is paramount.
The destructive repercussions of violent conflicts still linger in the Irish psyche. Being neutral is to comprehend our own history, being neutral is to take the side of the oppressed. On the other hand, for some people, Ireland must gear up and increase its defence, weaken its neutrality, and just join NATO.
These discussions are often pioneered by people with underlying motivations, such as the Irish Defence and Security Association (IDSA) - notably, one of its directors is UCD lecturer Ben Tonra - who lobby the Irish government on behalf of arms manufacturers.
Groups like the IDSA and its funders would see the profits if Ireland was to invest more in defence. Some political actors too have gains they could make in the ways of power and status if they decided to scrap neutrality as we know it. To collaborate with defence companies who profit from destabilising regions would be a betrayal to Ireland’s anti-imperialist past and our culture of solidarity movements.
Although the prospect of arming ourselves may seem reasonable with regard to ensuring we have a more secure defence, in reality this could prove extremely problematic. First, the current government of centre right politicians have been itching for the population to leave behind neutrality and support hikes in defence spending, with Taoiseach Mícheal Martin saying at the beginning of February that Ireland should invest more on defence to appease EU interests.
The ruling political class believes EU concerns ought to trump the overwhelming support for military neutrality in this country. It appears that certain government politicians do not want to merely protect and defend Ireland, but rather, to be deemed palatable, to be granted a seat at the big boys table of EU militarists.
Second, the theory of Neorealism for those familiar with the study of International Relations, assumes that if a state is to increase its artillery, other states in the global system will inevitably perceive this heightened security as intimidation and a threat. As a result, other states will increase their weaponry too. World leaders watching Ireland level up its defence could consequently raise global tensions even more.
Now more than ever we need to promote a strong neutral stance and we ought not to feel swayed by the opinions of powerful politicians in Ireland and the EU who are pushing for greater involvement in defence or weapons contracts.
Yes to Increased Defence Spending Adam Behan
President Alexander Stubb of Finland, a neutral European state turned NATO member, told EuroNews that Europe’s “holiday from history is now over.” This statement, when applied to Ireland, reveals a huge oversight in Irish domestic policy.
Ireland’s security and defence infrastructure is in a state of paralysis, wherein political bickering about Ireland’s role as a non-participant in collective security organisation overrides prudent moves towards bolstering our defence capabilities.
The Irish Defence Forces have deficits in personnel and resources, and funding so alarming that it is, by its own admission in 2022, unable to police Irish maritime territory and airspace from further violations by Russia or protect critical infrastructure from cyber-attacks, such as those made against the HSE in 2021 also from Russian sources.
Strong sentiments for Irish military neutrality stem from a different century; the underlying political sentiments driving support for Ireland’s unarmed neutrality are blind to the realities of hybrid warfare that ignore the factor of geographical placement that once kept us relatively out of harm's way.
It is imperative for Irish politicians to understand that neutral countries can still possess considerable firepower which can be used to protect itself, while also preserving the checks and balances required to block commitments to war. You only need to look at Switzerland and Austria for reference. To put detractors at ease, initiatives could be made to enshrine neutrality in the Irish constitution, as these countries have.
To use just one example of what is at stake, 550 undersea cables pass through Irish territorial waters, constituting critical economic infrastructure, and enabling Ireland to participate in a trans-Atlantic economy worth trillions of Euro. It is in our own interests that these cables, among other essential economic assets, be protected. If investments and efforts made in service of protecting them and ourselves are taken as an act of aggression by nations who behave as if international laws do not apply to them, then so be it.
What we can decide is if we will allow private interests to exploit our position and potentially lead us to hazard, or if we will take the responsibility to lead our own defence project which keeps our sovereignty intact.
The ‘Triple Lock’, a staple of Irish military neutrality, is a policy which dictates that any overseas detachment of more than 12 Irish peacekeeping troops requires approval from parliament/Dáil Éireann, the Irish Government, and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Recently drafted policy, if brought to cabinet, could remove the UNSC as a party to the Triple Lock.
The UNSC has proven to be an impotent force in international security, as its five permanent members (the United Kingdom, the United States, China, Russia, and France - a relic of post-War geopolitics) each hold the power to veto decisions. They have proved key to establishing that international institutions cannot adequately perform their functions in the wake of international conflict.
Ireland should take initiative in returning to itself the exclusive right to decide where Irish peacekeepers execute their role, and absent the political meddling of UNSC members - who clearly don’t value peace like Ireland does. Ireland’s prestigious role as an international peacekeeper is something to factor into our defence strategies going forward.
According to the ACLED Conflict Index, as of December 2024 an estimated 1 in 8 people globally were exposed to conflict. War is all around us. We must move Ireland in a direction that ensures the safety of Irish citizens and foreign nationals in Ireland, as the world steadily becomes a more dangerous place. However, these moves do not need to contradict our foreign policy of neutrality.
Beth’s Rebuttal:
Disregarding the moral aspect, or the argument of honouring our anticolonial history, in response to Adam’s perspective that favours an increase in defence, simply put, we do not have the means to sufficiently do so as a country.
As programme co-ordinator for war and pacification at the Transnational Institute, Niamh Ní Bhriain laid it out, Ireland would need to spend billions or more in order to catch up with our European neighbours and to reach the same military targets as them.
Such investments would deplete spending in other areas of our economy and society that require much more focus and much needed attention.
There is no doubt that the UNSC has its faults, and bringing greater decision making power back into the hands of the state is most definitely an improvement on what we presently have. However, with the current centre-right government behaving in a way that is eager for getting their hands dirty in arms deals, it conjures up worries as to how far they could go with defence spending and Ireland’s role as a neutral country.
Adam’s Rebuttal:
Implicit in this nationwide fear for militarism reflected in the Ireland Thinks poll cited by Beth is the belief that any step made towards improving our defence capabilities is an elite-driven initiative to abandon neutrality. Ireland’s policy of neutrality was of the political elite since its conception. If we cannot make efforts to review our position thoroughly, it indicates that the public is stuck looking behind and not ahead.
It was a major mistake not to enshrine neutrality in the 1937 Constitution, because it has left the door wide open for the issue, which transcends political concerns, to be politicised. Leon Trotsky once said that “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” Opposing war is the best position to take, but if war comes to Ireland, as it has once before, we should be ready for it.
The Irish government has not contradicted its policy of neutrality by advocating for increased spending. The argument that the Irish government wants to abandon neutrality is putting the cart before the horse. Ireland couldn’t join NATO without a popular referendum, so if that 75% who support Ireland’s neutrality wanted to vote against it, it would.