Alan Shatter, in his capacity as Minister for Defence, has produced a
Green Paper in anticipation of a “White Paper on Defence [which] will be
completed early in 2014 and will set out Ireland’s Defence policy framework for
the next decade.”
The Green Paper explicitly claims to “give expression to an active
vision of our neutrality” (section 1) entailing “a willingness to project Irish
values and priorities including the promotion and preservation of peace,
disarmament, human rights, and support for humanitarian operations through the
development and deployment of the Defence Forces…” However, this
unexceptionable statement is followed by a less reassuring one: “Ireland’s
approach to security is underlined by its engagement in EU Common Security and
Defence Policy…” The Paper never comes to grips with the contradiction between
“neutrality” and commitment to an “EU Common Security and Defence Policy”.
It goes without saying that the most flagrant violation of Ireland’s
traditional military neutrality – the de facto delivery of Shannon Airport to the US Air Force as a transit hub for its
troops flying to wars in the Middle East and elsewhere – merits not a single
mention in the Green Paper; this is probably its most eloquent omission.
In 2.6 we learn that “Ireland’s traditional policy of military
neutrality has its origins in the country’s declared neutrality during the
Second World War. Against this background… a decision was taken in 1949 not to
join the newly created North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)”. Nonetheless,
Ireland is now a part of NATO’s “Partnership for Peace”, to which former
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern committed us in 1999 despite having campaigned for election
on the rejection of “Irish
participation in… NATO-led organisations such as Partnership for Peace”,
particularly without a referendum. The fact that full NATO membership, unattainable without a
referendum, was avoided suggests a conviction that “Irish values and
priorities” were incompatible with such membership; the fact that Minister
Shatter is not openly moving in that direction suggests that nothing has
changed in the interim.
In 4.2.4, The EU and NATO,
we read that “[a]s both organisations cooperate on issues of common interest
and are working side by side in crisis-management operations, the NATO
Strategic Concept underlines the importance of improving the NATO-EU strategic
partnership.” All in all, the Green Paper gives the impression that Minister
Shatter is eager to blur the (already purely notional) distinction between
membership of PfP and full membership of NATO, evoking the suspicion that it is
merely a matter of time until the latter is presented to us as a necessity.
**********
Section 2.1 tells us that “security… has demands that differ from
those of the past” in that “threats to national security are much broader than
those of interstate conflict…” This is elaborated as follows (2.2):
“Globally
and regionally, the last decade has seen an increased emphasis on collective
security, which reflects the evolution of threats in the defence and security
environment… These threats include: terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, regional conflicts, state failure, organised crime, cyber
security, energy security, climate change and piracy. Ireland has proactively
engaged in the collective security response through the UN, the EU and NATO
Partnership for Peace (PfP). The development of the EU’s Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP) and its Common Security and Defence Policy (CDSP) [sic]
both underscore the Union’s emphasis on a comprehensive approach…Ireland
continues to play a full role in both the CFSP and CSDP.”
This is followed by the worrying assertion (2.3) that “[t]he
boundaries between the internal and external aspects of security are becoming
increasingly blurred.” Perhaps an example of such “blurring” was the Criminal Justice Act 2013 “grant[ing] the Minister for Justice and Equality [i.e. Alan
Shatter again!] the power to temporarily shut down a mobile phone network in a
given area, if it is thought that a mobile phone service could be used in the
mechanics of a terrorist event.” Prompted by the G8 Summit in Fermanagh in June
2013, the signature of this liberticidal act was fast-tracked by President
Higgins.
Section 2.7 deals with the so-called “Triple Lock” whereby overseas
operations by the Permanent Defence Force are conditional on “the authorisation
of the operation by the Security Council or General Assembly of the United
Nations…(,) a formal Government decision(,) and… the approval of Dáil Éireann.”
Traditionally – and after all, the Green Paper purports “to project
Irish values and priorities” – the Irish people have, rightly or wrongly, looked
to the UN as a guarantor of international law. For the Paper, however, “[t]he
benefits of a formal legislative requirement for UN authorisation must be
weighed against the possibility that this constraint may lead to an inability
to act on occasions where there is a pressing moral or security imperative and
overwhelming international support to do so, but where UN sanction is not
forthcoming, in circumstances where a veto is exercised by a permanent member
of the Security Council acting in its own national interests.”
Since Minister Shatter has always displayed an eagerness to align Ireland with the United States, we can be clear that the hypothetical
permanent member in question is not
the one that most frequently uses its veto, i.e. the USA. In a 2012 article, Stephen Zunes pointed out that “[s]ince 1970, China has used its veto power eight
times, and Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has used its veto power 13
times. However, the United States has used its veto power 83 times, primarily
in defense of allies accused of violating international humanitarian law.
Forty-two of these US vetoes were to protect Israel from criticism for illegal
activities, including suspected war crimes.”
The Green Paper, therefore, is proposing that the Triple Lock –
specifically, the “UN authorisation” component – should be abandoned if and
when the USA identifies “a pressing moral or security imperative” to do so. The
“overwhelming international support”, as we know, can amount to a few vassal regimes within the US sphere of influence. The
deployment of the adjective “moral” (much favoured but selectively used by Minister Shatter) for a hypothetical
by-passing of the Security Council should be seen in this context.
So when the Paper concludes that “[o]n balance, the advantages of
retaining the [Triple Lock] mechanism can be seen as outweighing the
disadvantages” but deems it “an issue worthy of discussion in advance of the
adoption of a new White Paper”, we can be pretty sure which side of this
discussion the Minister will be backing.
**********
A series of “Policy Questions” (2.8) ends with the following query:
“How can Defence further contribute to economic recovery e.g. options for
increased engagement with Irish Industry?”
Section 2.5 had already cited the NATO buzz-word “interoperability”,
i.e. the requirement that Ireland’s defence forces should be equipped according
to standards – very costly ones – established by NATO. We are told that “[t]he
percentage of Government expenditure allocated to Defence in Ireland is one of
the lowest in the EU”, something that many of us might celebrate, although
lamenting that the money thus saved is not more productively expended on social
infrastructure. Instead, the Paper’s reflection that “[i]n the short term
funding constraints may prevent us from making commitments or carrying out
activities which might be otherwise considered desirable when the Exchequer
finances have been put on a more sustainable footing” suggests that “in the
long term” Minister Shatter may indeed have plans to waste more of our
financial resources on military hardware.
However, the implications of the “policy question” are more
far-reaching. Section 4.3.2.1, European
Defence Agency, tells us (in sickening jargon) that “Ireland’s
participation in the Agency is focused on the development of military
capabilities for UN-led or UN mandated peace support operations and leveraging
the contribution which the Irish Defence Forces in partnership with Irish
Enterprise can make in delivering high end research and technology in support
of such capabilities.” Section 5, Defence
support to economic development, merits more extensive quotation:
“In July
2011, Government approval was received, pursuant to s. 8(5) of the Science and
Technology Act, 1987 whereby Enterprise Ireland would support Defence by raising
the awareness of and engaging with, Irish-based enterprise and research
institutes, including third level colleges that are engaged in relevant
activities related to Defence Forces capability development. The primary
objective is to support Defence Forces capability development and also to
support innovation, growth and jobs in Irish based industry, particularly in
the security and defence (dual use) sector, which can contribute to Ireland’s
economic development and recovery. In addition, the Government agreed that
Enterprise Ireland could also support Irish based enterprise and research
institutes, the Department of Defence and Defence Forces Capability
Development, where appropriate in relation to European Defence Agency ongoing
activities.”
Complete clarity is required here: the European Defence Agency (EDA) is a front for the international arms trade. The Green Paper is in fact proposing the doctrine
of military Keynesianism, i.e. “ the position that the government should increase military
spending in order to increase economic
growth” (Wikipedia) or, according to the late Professor Chalmers Johnson, “[t]he
economic disaster that is military Keynesianism.” This also clarifies the
repeated, almost obsessive references in the Green Paper to “cyber-terrorism”,
seen as a potential spur to deepened involvement of the military in the
lucrative sphere of internet research and development. The reference to “third
level colleges” hints darkly at the kind of military engagement in academia
that has so compromised academic independence in Minister Shatter’s favourite
countries, Israel and the USA. This is a potential development that should be viewed with the deepest
suspicion, particularly at a time when cutbacks in education at all levels are
biting.
**********
Finally, section 6 of the Green Paper muses on “possible future trends”,
and suggests some general reflections on its own presuppositions. While the
Paper accepts that “the risk
of a conventional military attack on Ireland’s territory from another State
will remain very low”, it fails to ask why this is the case and whether indeed
a perception of Ireland, however inaccurate, as a neutral state uninvolved in
US military adventures might have contributed to such a low risk. If “[t]hreats
to the EU, to European interests and to wider security are now threats to
Ireland”, as the Paper asserts, could this not be a result of successive Irish
governments’ decisions to soften up our neutrality and subject ourselves to an
“EU Common Security and Defence Policy”?
But of course the new bogey is no longer exclusively this or that
state, but supposedly free-floating “terrorism”. The paper cites the UN Panel of High
Level threats, “Terrorism attacks the values that lie at the heart of the
Charter of the United Nations: respect for human rights; the rule of law; rules
of war that protect civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and the
peaceful resolution of conflict”. However, these words could equally be applied to the USA and its satellites, most notably Israel,
which are quick “to use unlimited violence to cause massive casualties”, a
phrase applied exclusively to terrorists by the Paper. If “Spain, France,
Sweden, Germany and the UK have been targeted by credible terrorist plots”,
could this not be traced back to the involvement of these states in
neo-imperial adventures outside their borders?
Yet even in relation to international terrorism, the Paper concludes
that “the direct threat to Ireland… is currently assessed as low. However, the
State shares the common risk that arises for western democracies generally.” But
why does it arise? Is it because “they hate our freedoms”, as George W. Bush claimed, or because they hate the resurgence of
western imperialism, which all too frequently leads to brutal military
intervention and/or to drone warfare against their civilians? If the latter,
then surely a meaningful policy of military neutrality would be a more rational
and indeed more moral strategy? Instead, Shatter’s Green Paper, while
disingenuously proclaiming its allegiance to neutrality, proposes to align this
country unambiguously with western imperialism. This should be vigorously
opposed.
