Sir, - Douglas Gageby has written a fascinating account of Sean Lester's wartime role as the last Secretary General of the League of Nations in Geneva. Lester's views on neutrality are of particular interest to us today. Rejecting the notion of Irish neutrality, he nevertheless understood the reasons for non-belligerence during the second World War and supported, with reservations, the policy adopted by de Valera in this regard. The possibility of anti-British feelings being exploited by extreme nationalists to the point of civil war was a real danger. Hence the "slightly neutral" policy that was in reality a pro-Allied form of non-belligerence. An Irish solution indeed to an Irish problem, telling us more of the myopic understanding of Nazism by extreme nationalists than of any global mission statement on the benefits of neutrality for all.
During the Cold War Ireland pursued a constructive honest-broker type of foreign policy - in common with such states as Canada and Norway, founder members of NATO. Unlike these latter, however, we have, over time, allowed this policy to acquire the status of myth under the unimpeachable rubric of "neutrality". This myth of a never-to-be-defined neutrality distorts our understanding of the role played by Ireland during the Cold War. More seriously, it elevates what was a war-time policy of expediency to the status of high moral principle and discourages any consideration today of the difficult moral and political questions that arise from being compelled to adopt such a course. For instance, how is wartime neutrality to be reconciled with the destruction of Czechoslovakia and Poland, states of similar historical provenance to the Irish Free State?
The failure of the country to demythologise Irish neutrality has allowed the debate in recent years to become mired in, on one side, outpourings of mounting hysteria claiming conspiracy and betrayal at every turn, and on the other side an ever more elaborate and surreal fudge of policy direction. Today the character of "neutrality" as a mythical construct has reached epic proportions as we commit to the Common Foreign and Security Policy within the EU, while simultaneously pursuing a policy currently blessed with the title of "military neutrality".
This latter is nonsensical: neutrality is a political and not a military issue. In truth what this bizarre term conveys is nothing more than an on-going state of chronic indecision on a parade ground or in a trench. The Government might as well declare a policy of "medical probity" in settling the nurses' dispute. The reason for pre-empting debate on PfP is that "military neutrality" wouldn't stand 30 seconds' sober discussion before descending into farce, bringing the entire Heath-Robinson policy edifice down in one fell swoop.
Meanwhile, regardless of our endless perorations on having our cake while eating it, the post-Cold War agenda is being developed at, among other places, the UN tribunals at The Hague and Arusha. Last week Louise Arbour, the outgoing chief prosecutor at the War Crimes Tribunal, praised the NATO intervention in Kosovo as constituting, albeit, belatedly, a de facto endorsement by the US of the principles underlying the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Controversial perhaps, but dealing with real issues in the real world. How refreshing! - Yours, etc.,
Peter Walsh, Heathervue, Greystones, Co Wicklow.