“I am concerned that we [will] not have a full, adequate discussion on the importance of neutrality that we need . . . It is worthy of a discussion that is much deeper and involves citizens.”
These remarks by President Michael D Higgins in an interview last Sunday illustrate a constant theme of his presidency and one he promises to continue. He was referring to Pesco, the European Union’s Permanent Structured Co-operation on defence and security. Ireland signed up to it last year and has agreed to participate in two of 30 its optional and voluntary tasks.
The Government says Pesco is compatible with neutrality defined as non-participation in a military alliance; critics say either that the scheme is part of a wider militarisation of the EU and a step on the way towards a European army or that the Government has failed to explain how Ireland’s role should be understood operationally and politically. Many who support Ireland’s Pesco involvement want the State to go further towards integrating security and defence policies in the EU, partly in anticipation of future calls to reciprocate solidarity over Brexit.
Higgins is strong on the need for fuller public discussion of European defence and security, as on its economic and social policies. He made them part of a critical questioning of market assumptions, historical amnesia and the lack of an ethical dimension in Irish public life. He has led the way there with substantial and searching speeches on these issues, delivered to influential international and national audiences. They bear up very well as benchmark statements of emerging questions deserving more public engagement. He has been specially skilful in finding a way to articulate these concerns without prejudice to existing Government policies, even when his own emphases differ and are often more left-wing.
Pesco challenge
It is a “metapolitics” in the sense of being over or beyond everyday politics, yet raising questions deserving attention “from the street” as he puts it, as well as from politicians. Some critics can say the support he secured from Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour in this election locate him firmly in that “official Ireland”; yet his genuine street popularity and legitimacy tap into a felt popular need for the added value he offers.
His election platform promises a valuable Shared Ireland, Shared Island initiative. “This is a critical time in our history. However it unfolds, Brexit will herald a new beginning in our shared history and our long relationship with our nearest neighbour, which is home to generations of Irish people. So we must work together in this new reality with courage, mutual respect and positivity.”
Why should faith be placed in the competence of the US as the world's superpower and policeman?
The absence of those three parties largely explains the woefully inadequate campaign in which Higgins’s opponents simply failed to address, much less criticise this main feature of his presidency or the themes he has raised.
The Pesco issue typifies them. The three broad tendencies opposed to Ireland’s official position on EU defence and security policies can be summarised as sovereigntist, critical and integrationist. Intriguingly, each of them says Irish public debate on such important questions is quite inadequate. In this they echo Higgins.
Foreign policy
The sovereigntists say the State should seek a complete opt-out like Denmark’s because they violate the anti-imperial tradition of neutrality which should be pursued through the United Nations in keeping with Ireland’s foreign policy traditions. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance (Pana) takes this view and mobilises it effectively in EU referendums.
The critical approach is more Eurocentric. It is exemplified in recent articles on Pesco by Dave Alvey in Irish Political Review, available through Pana's website. Criticising EU integrationist advocates, he asks a series of pertinent questions: Why should Ireland's defence forces become integrated into EU military structures that are ultimately subservient to the US general command? Why should faith be placed in the competence of the US as the world's superpower and policeman? Why should the historical legacy of Casement and de Valera on neutrality and anti-imperialism be abandoned? Why should the Irish diplomatic tradition of challenging militarism be displaced by realpolitik? And why should a major Irish policy shift be based on ill-founded assumptions about European federalism?
The integrationists argue it is in Ireland’s best interests to participate in Pesco as part of an evolving EU political union. They say the “triple lock” requiring UN approval before committing Irish troops to overseas military operations is too restrictive, subject to Chinese and Russian veto.
A rapidly changing global politics makes this debate as pressing and necessary as Higgins argues it is.