Madam, - While his call for a debate on neutrality might be welcome, Fine Gael MEP Gay Mitchell unfortunately confuses some key concepts (The Irish Times, March 16th).
As he appears to acknowledge, a "common defence" is precisely that. The underpinning of such a commitment is a mutual security guarantee predicated upon its automatic application if one of the parties to that treaty is attacked.
In the case of both Nato and the WEU it is the expectation that military assistance will be immediately forthcoming in the event of an attack, whether or not this requires - as in Nato's Washington Treaty - an explicit decision of each individual national government.
By contrast, the phrasing in the WEU treaty - which Gay Mitchell prefers - implies an even more automatic military response from treaty partners.
To suggest that this Republic would join a common defence on a "case-by-case basis" makes a nonsense of the very concept. Indeed, an Irish government would be on solid ground in arguing that such a vague and loose commitment did no violence to successive governments' very narrow definition of "neutrality" as non-membership of a military alliance. In Gay Mitchell's scenario this State would not, in fact, be a member of a military alliance but would have reserved its right to join one in repelling an attack on an EU member-state.
The proposed EU constitutional treaty contains nothing which undermines the policy of neutrality as defined and pursued by successive Irish governments. For those who apply a broader definition of what neutrality should be, it may well be argued that Ireland should withdraw from the EU and indeed the UN. Those such as Gay Mitchell who find the "neutrality" debate farcical may wish to reflect on the reasons for commiting to a "common defence" without giving that commitment any real substance. - Yours, etc.,
BEN TONRA, Jean Monnet Professor of EU Foreign Security and Defence Policy, Geary Institute, UCD, Dublin 4.