In the EU, out of NATO: Austria, Ireland and Malta rethink what neutrality means in an era of militarisation and renewed defence spending.
As the US threatens to distance itself from its NATO allies, the European Union is under increasing pressure to pick up the military alliance’s slack. New commitments to defence and security are at the forefront of much of the bloc’s latest policy efforts.
For three of its members, in particular, that presents a unique quandary, one with political and constitutional implications.
Austria, Ireland and Malta are the odd ones out: Aside from Cyprus, they are the only countries who find themselves inside the EU but outside of NATO. This is because the three are legally bound to neutrality, which forbids them from joining military alliances.
It does not, however, mean they are pacifist or forbidden from joining conflict. Neutrality is not a one-size-fits-all model, and policymakers in Europe’s neutral states are starting to reconsider what neutrality means.
Even Switzerland, a non-EU country that is perhaps best known for its neutrality, may be starting to embrace military partnerships. Martin Pfister, the incoming Swiss defence minister, called co-operation and joint training exercises with NATO as “absolutely necessary.”
The Irish case
For Ireland, neutrality is protected in the form of the “triple lock.” This means committing Irish troops to combat requires cabinet and parliamentary approval as well as a United Nations mandate.
“Neutrality is not a religion. It’s a foreign policy,” Cian FitzGerald, a senior researcher at the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA), a think tank in Dublin, told The Parliament, paraphrasing a Swiss academic’s understanding of the concept.
War and peace is a particularly sensitive issue for the island nation, which endured decades of violence until 1997. Ireland was compelled to participate in the First World War, as it was still part of the United Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland became independent in the interwar years, adding neutrality to its constitution. On the eve of the next World War, it held fast to that position to avoid being dragged into another conflict, this time alongside its former British rulers against Germany.
Given constitutional ambiguities, Irish neutrality can be open to interpretation. When it comes to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a clear violation of international law, Ireland has taken a political position against Russia, even as it has refrained from sending lethal aid to Ukraine.
The country has also taken part in UN peacekeeping missions, such as in Kosovo, Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Ireland has been one of the few EU members to plainly rebuke Israel for its devastating military offensive in Gaza, which has killed more than 50,000 people.
Though not a full member, Ireland is a NATO partner, allowing the country “to be interoperable with other states,” FitzGerald said.
For the alliance, Ireland’s geographic location in the northern Atlantic makes it a strategic asset, especially given rising fears of undersea cable cutting and Russian submarine activity.
Simon Harris, Ireland’s foreign minister, has said the country would send troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping mission. A UN mandate for one is unlikely, given Russia’s veto on the Security Council. That means Ireland is considering breaking its “triple lock” requirement.
Harris tabled the issue last month, in a move to take greater control of the country’s foreign policy.
“A single veto from a country with its own vested interests can block Ireland from participating in vital peacekeeping missions,” commented Sean Kelly, an Irish MEP. “That is not sovereignty. That is outsourcing our decision-making to states that may not share our values.”
Additional changes to Irish neutrality are unlikely, as they would require a constitutional referendum. Three-quarters of people in Ireland appear to oppose tinkering with it.
Read the full piece on The Parliament here.
Between the Lynes 