Neutrality in a time of war

As a hub for US tech firms, Ireland’s security is vulnerable but the Government is not yet prepared to think about ending Ireland’s neutrality despite the war in Ukraine, writes Judy Dempsey

I was recently invited to meet a group of Irish TDs from across the political spectrum. There was a lot on the agenda, but Irish neutrality did not make the cut. 

Some TDs said Russia’s war in Ukraine was not the right time to discuss the future of Ireland’s neutral stance. Others said the issue was taboo.

For a democratic country anchored in the EU, which itself is becoming a defensive player because of the war in Ukraine, Irish neutrality is still a highly emotional and ideological issue. 

Even though successive Irish governments have cherished this status over the years, they have not been prepared to pay for it. Only now is the defence budget being increased, having already been decimated. 

Only now is the Government looking at the role of the Russian embassy in Dublin, whose diplomats know full well the strategic importance of Ireland. 

Ireland is a hub for American IT, software and cyber security companies. It is an underwater gateway for cables packed with data that pass back and forth in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean. 

What a treasure trove for intelligence officers. In short, Ireland’s security is vulnerable. 
This is where security and neutrality come into play. The Irish Government and the public are not yet prepared to think about ending our neutrality despite the war that is being waged in Europe. 

But look at Finland and Sweden – staunch defenders of their own neutrality. The Russian invasion of Ukraine persuaded them to join NATO because their neutrality, despite spending much on defence, was not enough to make them feel secure.

Ireland may not have a sense of insecurity regardless of cyber-attacks on its health service and its geostrategic position as an IT hub, but here is a hypothetical question: 
If Ireland were a member of NATO, would it support Ukraine being offered NATO membership when the US-led alliance meets on 11 and 12 July in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius? 

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has been pleading with NATO countries to give Ukraine the green light to join. 

The United States is, for now, opposed to the idea. The Biden administration does not want a confrontation with Russia. 

The US Government, along with several European countries, believes that offering Ukraine membership now would lead to more escalation because Russian President Vladimir Putin could simply claim that NATO wants to attack Russia.

But it has been Russia that has been escalating: the indiscriminate bombing of infrastructure and civilian targets, rape, torture, preventing Ukrainian grain exports and abducting children. Several big cities and towns in Ukraine now lie in ruins.

The contrary view is that, if Ukraine is not offered NATO membership at Vilnius now, Russia will prolong the war. 

One need only look at what happened after the NATO Bucharest summit in 2008 when France and Germany vetoed NATO from offering Ukraine (and Georgia) the Membership Action Plan – a roadmap to join the alliance. Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022. 

The consequences of a ‘no’ in Vilnius, or the refusal by a group of countries to offer concrete security guarantees will not only prolong the war, it will also give Putin the signal to interfere in more countries in the region, leading to more instability, more destruction and more refugees.   

That is the choice facing NATO and neutral countries.