‘Nail in the coffin of Irish neutrality’ or global reality check? The triple lock war rages on

The Opposition was similarly agitated but not entirely aligned during a fractious debate on legislation to abolish the triple lock in the Dáil on Wednesday.The triple lock is a legal provision that effectively requires three hurdles to be cleared before Irish troops can be deployed abroad: a decision of the Government, a majority in the Dáil and the authorisation of the United Nations. Social Democrats TD Sinéad Gibney spoke for many on the left when she declared: “This is an absolute nail in the coffin of Irish neutrality.”Labour’s Duncan Smith took a more nuanced view: “I do not believe the triple lock is the full manifestation or expression of Irish neutrality. I believe it is part of it and an important part of it at that,” he said.READ MOREOther contributions to the debate were less reserved than both. For People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett, the Bill is “a historic betrayal of this country’s tradition of neutrality, instigated by people like Wolfe Tone and later by James Connolly, Patrick Pearse and Constance Markievicz”.These are familiar refrains. Defenders of neutrality have been warning that neutrality was being destroyed by each EU treaty (including the original accession treaty in 1972, which both Sinn Féin and Michael D Higgins warned would be the end of Irish neutrality) through to the Nice and Lisbon treaties, by successive EU defence co-operation projects such as Pesco, by membership of Nato’s partnership for peace alliance and by the use of Shannon Airport by the US military. If they were right, then how could there be anything left of Irish neutrality at this stage?But at least the defenders of neutrality are consistent. Taoiseach Micheál Martin – as he was reminded many times by speakers – previously said the triple lock was “central to our neutrality”. Now he says getting rid of the triple lock will leave Irish neutrality unaffected. His explanation – that the world has changed since then – might be true but it sounds glib. There is unease on the Fianna Fáil benches, with John McGuinness and Willie O’Dea absent from Wednesday’s first Dáil vote on the issue – with permission, the chief whip’s office confirmed – but not enough for a full-scale rebellion – not at this stage anyway. This week’s vote on legislation that would end the need for UN approval before Irish troops can be sent abroad was won by the Government by 79 votes to 71 following the fractious debate.The Government argues that because the UN Security Council – the body that has previously authorised missions – is mired in a stalemate and has not given the go-ahead for any new missions since 2014, it should remove the effective veto the permanent members of the council have on Irish deployments.Opponents say there are other possible avenues of UN approval, such as through the General Assembly, though diplomats say this is far-fetched. But opponents also say the Government is getting rid of the requirement for UN approval because it wants to join western “imperialist wars” – effectively, that it wants to abandon neutrality and join the side of the West, led by the US.“It is a clear Government declaration of a rejection of Ireland’s positive active neutrality that has supported Ireland’s long-serving United Nations peacekeeping contributions and a sign of the Government’s determination to foment a military industrial complex at the EU level and to send the Irish Defence Forces abroad – without UN authorisation – to takes sides in conflicts and war,” says Dublin City University academic Karen Devine, an assistant professor in politics.Ben Tonra, professor of European foreign, security and defence policy at UCD, disagrees. “Ireland will be as neutral after the triple lock as it was before,” he says. “This step is a simple recognition of the geopolitical realities we face.”John O’Brennan, professor of European politics at Maynooth University, has little time for doom-filled warnings about the end of neutrality. “A lot of what passes for argument among those who defend the triple lock is straight out of Alice in Wonderland. These people are completely detached from reality,” he says.Moderation has never been a staple of this debate. Since the 1970s, people have been warning that the cream of Ireland’s youth will be sent off to fight in foreign wars. It hasn’t happened (yet) but that hasn’t stopped its reliable repetition. In a public meeting earlier this year, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said: “I’ve one son. Over my dead body will my son be deployed to fight an imperialist war of aggression on any people.” Sinn Féin made this a theme of a series of public meetings on the issue. Concerns about and attachment to neutrality are real and enduring. Polls show a continuing strong attachment to the idea of neutrality, even if there might be a range of definitions of what that actually means. On the specific question of the triple lock, polls show that a majority of those who express an opinion favour its retention, though it is hardly overwhelming. Last month, when The Irish Times asked the question, 44 per cent said they favoured retention of the triple lock, 34 per cent its removal and 22 per cent said they didn’t know, according to the opinion poll conducted by Ipsos B&A.An Irish Neutrality League protest outside Leinster House in March. Photograph: Sam Boal/Collins Photos O’Brennan has little time for the way the triple lock constrains the elected parliament and the government answerable to it.“Why on earth do proponents of the triple lock deny to Ireland’s elected representatives the right to take decisions on behalf of the Irish people? Why would we insist on attaining the agreement of the leader of Burundi or 100 other states on deployment decisions, rather than the men and women we elect to take decisions on our behalf?” he asks.“Ireland is a parliamentary democracy and only Irish people should have input into these critical decisions on deployment. Why subcontract those decisions to a multitude of other states in the General Assembly or even worse the UN Security Council? “I don’t vote for leaders in Brazil, India or Australia, so why should our decisions depend in part on how those countries vote? Other countries think we are completely mad in operating the way we have been.”[ Minister wants role for Irish Navy in EU mission targeting Russia shadow fleetOpens in new window ]Sources familiar with thinking on the issue in Government say the signal it would send to Ireland’s EU allies that the country was getting serious about defence would be an important one. They point out there is decreasing patience with Ireland’s approach to security, an issue with which EU members are increasingly preoccupied. “We are regarded as complete freeloaders,” says one source.[ ‘A bunch of freeloaders’: Increasing UK pressure on Ireland to invest in defenceOpens in new window ]Military types also fret the retention of the triple lock would mean the end of peacekeeping missions abroad and that would inevitably mean a decline in skills and capacities in the Defence Forces. Cathal Berry, a former Army Ranger and Independent TD, says the “vast majority” of the military and defence community in Ireland want to see the end of the triple lock. A further concern for soldiers is that overseas deployments – with no cost of living and special allowances payable – are a chance to save money for a house deposit, or other big purchase. It would become harder to retain military personnel without peacekeeping missions, Berry says.Having passed its first vote during the week, the Bill now moves to its committee stage. “We’ll delay it there as much as we can,” says one Opposition TD frankly. But the Government has the numbers. It should be possible to get it passed through the Oireachtas by Christmas.[ Nato chief calls for ‘conversation’ on usefulness of Irish neutrality in changing worldOpens in new window ]However, Sara O’Rourke of the Irish Neutrality Alliance says there are “constitutional considerations” that could yet come into play. Some pro-neutrality campaigners expect that President Catherine Connolly – a fierce advocate for the triple lock when she was a TD – may refer the Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. Others – on both sides of the argument – think a private legal challenge is more likely. Paul Murphy, People Before Profit-Solidarity TD, says the “fight to defend the triple lock and Irish neutrality is far from over”. The Government will face weeks of intense debate in the committee rooms, in the Dáil and in the Seanad. At the same time, the Irish Neutrality League has a campaign to mobilise large numbers of people on the streets and add pressure on Government TDs and Senators to defend the triple lock, or at the very least to allow the people to decide on it in a referendum. “There were only eight TDs in the difference on Wednesday night. I expect this number to keep coming down as TDs go back to their constituencies and realise public opinion is against the Government on this one,” says Murphy.