Living in the real world is uncomfortable

There is nothing negative in that. All countries are self-serving in their actions, whether in economic, defensive, or other facets of national life or policy. Ireland’s neutrality, however, is unique as we want to have it every way. There is an expectation that the UK or the European Union or the US will leap to our defence if we are militarily or infrastructurally attacked. Our defence spending is among the lowest in the EU, so our ability to defend ourselves is minimal. Other practitioners of neutrality tend to take defence more seriously, at considerable cost. Switzerland, pre-eminent among European neutral countries, invests 0.76 per cent of its GDP on military capability, more than double our spend. An observation of particular importance is that Ireland is a member of the European Union and Switzerland is not. We could reasonably be accused of benefitting from EU membership while being unwilling to devote sufficient resources towards the defence of the Union. Only the most ill-informed would say that the EU is not under threat, whether from a militant Russia, terrorism or cyber or infrastructure attacks. Piggybacking on other nations’ costly investment in defence is largely ignored by those who place our neutral stance on a pedestal at the very top of the high moral ground.

Nuclear stance

This virtue signalling bears comparison with our stance on nuclear power generation. It is banned by legal statute. That doesn’t, however, prevent us from importing UK-produced nuclear energy. This contradiction will become even more obvious when the proposed underwater electricity connection to the nuclear-rich French energy system is completed. Meanwhile, as those electrical and telecommunications connectors to the UK, Continental Europe or the Trans-Atlantic interconnectors to North America come under increasing risk of disruption, we will have to rely almost entirely on the goodwill of others. Calling this freeloading is an accurate if distasteful description of our current position. It will not change, given the reluctance of our political leaders to show much leadership on the matter, bar some tentative efforts to dismantle one of the three locks preventing us from even fully engaging in peacekeeping roles across the world.

Speaking out

Dan Mulhall, who held Irish ambassadorial roles in Germany, UK, US and Malaysia, during his 40-year diplomatic career, was guest speaker at the Guild of Agricultural Journalist of Ireland’s biennial Michael Dillon Memorial Lecture last month. Released from diplomatic niceties in his retirement from the Irish diplomatic service, Dan was forthright in his questioning of the outspoken condemnations, most notably in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, we regularly hear from our government and opposition representatives. Apart from deviating from the accepted norms of neutral countries, the provocative utterances of almost every public representative across the political spectrum, put our selfish economic and political interests at risk. Yes, of course, there is a case to be made for speaking out against injustice and worse. There is also the reality that we have no power to change the actions of far more powerful global forces. Jeopardising our best interests on the basis that it is the ‘right thing to do’ is not a logical stance for a virtually defenceless country that relies on the goodwill of others for our economic wellbeing. Pain and suffering should always be called out whether it impacts our economic wellbeing or not. Fine, except, if your own job in Intel or Pfizer is jeopardised, or the value of your produce is reduced, such virtue-signalling becomes a personal concern, not an abstract concept. We must live in the real world, not the one we would like it to be.