Neutrality and the "triple lock"

Planet Potato has a post about Ireland's "triple lock on neutrality" which quotes the Minister of Defence:

I want to make the absolutely clear again today: In any consideration of Irish troops acting overseas that this Government will not allow our policy of military neutrality to be eroded. The triple-lock will remain. Ireland will only participate in military activity overseas with Government, Dáil and UN authorisation

I have to agree with Mr Potato. Stated thus, the triple lock* is preposterous, regardless of the composition of the UN security council. I'm not quite sure what the purpose of obtaining UN approval is - if there's an action that the government wants to do, how does it further Ireland's interests in any way that it be prevented from doing so on the whim of any of the countries who fluke a seat on the council. The thing is, this is a separate issue from neutrality. I'm against neutrality anyway** but even if I was in favour of neutrality, this triple lock would surely contradict it unless "neutrality" is taken to mean "allied with the UN ".

* incidentally, shouldn't it be the double lock? The first two "locks" kind of go together, the government generally governs only by consent of the Dail.

** One of the many reasons not to favour neutrality is the nauseating moralising associated with Ireland's neutral stance. This moralising is doubly nauseating because it's not based on any substance, but is an inversion of the truth. There is no moral high ground in refusing to take sides. I'd be a lot more tolerant of neutrality-boosters if they admitted that neutrality is a piece of amoral realpolitik - given that, thanks to our proximity to the UK, we aren't in any direct danger, it's much cheaper to "free-ride" off others than contribute to any military alliances.

Comments

[copernicus]

The first two locks are certainly a single lock in the absence of proper separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. It's more correct, however, to say that rather than the government governing with the consent of the Dail, the Executive controls the Dail through the non-constitutional actor, the Chief Whip. And so the Legislature legislates with the consent or at least at the behest of the Government/Executive.

I'm not in favour of the Triple Lock myself and believe Ireland should participate in PfP and Petersberg Tasks, battle groups etc, but being against neutrality because you think John Gormley is a twat isn't a very nuanced position, or particular credible.

Ireland should remain non-aligned and pick and choose its multilateral projects and overseas deployments. Having said that our neutrality during the Second World War and our failure to denounce EU and UN failures to intervene in the Balkans in the early-mid 90s are shameful historical positions.

The EU/NATO had every right to hammer the Serbs for destabilising a region which it surrounds, for appalling war crimes and for potentially dragging one of its member states (Greece) into the conflict.

We should be very wary of trading one lock (the UN) for a requirement to tag along on the mad adventures piss poorly planned by the PNAC, as many of the reactionary mentalists who poo poo neutrality seem so desperately to wish. There's nothing wrong with being neutral, and it doesn't have to mean being amoral just because certain people say it does.

[potato]

Also how can you be neutral as a rule, you have to know who the sides are first. You can be non-aligned (a la Sweden), but you are unlikely to ever be neutral.

[Frank McGahon]

It's more correct, however, to say that rather than the government governing with the consent of the Dail, the Executive controls the Dail through the non-constitutional actor, the Chief Whip. And so the Legislature legislates with the consent or at least at the behest of the Government/Executive.

Well, yes, but the Dail elects the government in the first place and what I had in mind was the fact that the Dail can always pass a vote of no confidence in the government.

but being against neutrality because you think John Gormley is a twat isn't a very nuanced position, or particular credible.

I did say that this, or something like this, was one of the main reasons not the only one but let me explain. I'm actually only tentatively opposed to neutrality - I'm not entirely immune to the amoral realpolitik argument, it's hard to me to come up with a good practical argument against freeloading on the UK while they don't object and I can see the merit in DeValera's policy during WW2 (if not his passing condolences upon Hitler's death) given a) that an alliance with the UK would have been a de facto acceptance of partition which would probably have sparked another civil war, and b) the parlous state of the country, beggared and war-weary. Though note also that this isn't anything to be proud about. But, elevating our neutrality to a point of high principle has seriously coarsened and infantilised (the last thing I want is for Ireland to be the South Korea of Europe) political discourse in this country in relation to foreign affairs. We are simply not morally superior to non-neutral countries.

The EU/NATO had every right to hammer the Serbs for destabilising a region which it surrounds, for appalling war crimes and for potentially dragging one of its member states (Greece) into the conflict.

On this we can agree.

There's nothing wrong with being neutral, and it doesn't have to mean being amoral just because certain people say it does.

Ok, you've been good enough to come and debate this in good faith without snarkiness so I won't be smartarsed about saying that amoral means something different to immoral. My point is that neutrality is, almost by definition, amoral, it's not because someone says it's so. Amoral is the "neutral" midpoint between moral and immoral: not taking a stand on whether something is right or wrong. This is just ordinary use of language and not any kind of slur. My problem is when neutrality is profferred as some kind of elevated moral principle when it, as I say, amounts to a refusal (albeit probably wise in lots of cases) to take a stand. The funny thing is that in Ireland, this stance is just unthinkingly assumed, while outside Ireland, almost nobody would make this (almost oxymoronic) claim.

[copernicus]

"so I won't be smartarsed about saying that amoral means something different to immoral"

er,

a) I'm quite particular in my choice of words, and I know what lots of them mean.

b) this is typical of your posting style, which seems utterly to lack any kind of self awareness. It's headwrecking.

[copernicus]

"Amoral is the "neutral" midpoint between moral and immoral: not taking a stand on whether something is right or wrong."

Jesus, do you work for the OED? Are they including diagrams in their definitions? Can you plot that mathematically for me instead, I just don't feel I'm getting it?

[Frank McGahon]

More fool me for (briefly) thinking I could have an intelligent, reasoned dicussion with "Copernicus".

Look, here's the dictionary definiton of amoral

a·mor·al P Pronunciation Key (-môrl, -mr-) adj.

Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.

Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

I don't think there's anything idiosyncratic about my paraphrase above. I don't care how careful you think you are with language, the phrasing you used - There's nothing wrong with being neutral, and it doesn't have to mean being amoral just because certain people say it does - clearly conflates "immoral" with "amoral". If that wasn't your intention (and now I am being smartarsed - although I am charitable enough to use "conflate" instead of "confuse") I suggest you strive to be even more careful in your use of language.

[EWI]

* incidentally, shouldn't it be the double lock? The first two "locks" kind of go together, the government generally governs only by consent of the Dail.

Uhh, hello? Minority Government?

** One of the many reasons not to favour neutrality is the nauseating moralising associated with Ireland's neutral stance. This moralising is doubly nauseating because it's not based on any substance, but is an inversion of the truth. There is no moral high ground in refusing to take sides.

And which sides might they be, precisely...? Here we come to the nub of what's eating Frank McGahon & friends.

I'd be a lot more tolerant of neutrality-boosters if they admitted that neutrality is a piece of amoral realpolitik - given that, thanks to our proximity to the UK, we aren't in any direct danger

Yes, thank God militarily for having the UK on our doorstep. Because otherwise we might all be speaking French or (God forbid) Gaelic.

[Frank McGahon]

And which sides might they be, precisely...? Here we come to the nub of what's eating Frank McGahon & friends.

Oh, give me a break. (Incidentally, it's perfectly clear from above what's "eating" me and it's not neutrality itself, but the nauseating moralising - an activity with which you are intimately familiar). If you refuse to take sides, you can't even take the opposite side to whichever one you think "Frank McGahon & friends" chooses. Maybe if you used your brain to reflect (even, heaven forfend, read the actual words written) instead of reflexively tilting at imaginary "right wing" windmills, you might even figure this out for yourself.

I'll spell it out for you. Let's say the US invaded Sweden and routed those infernal Scandinavian social democrats, with their high taxes and generous paternity leave, to install a puppet government to oversee a low tax, free market, "freedom and prosperity" zone. Let's say that a coterie of evil "right wing" keyboard-warriors who we will refer to as "Frank McGahon & friends" cheered this to the rafters, even though the vast majority of their compatriots were horrifed at the US action.

Now, we have two sides: The US cheered by this little evil bunch and the poor vanquished Swedish government in exile. Are you going to claim that there is some sort of high moral principle behind refusing to take sides?

Thought not.

[Frank McGahon]

Oh and by the way:

Uhh, hello? Minority Government?

Uhh, hello? right back atcha. Your point is? A minority government is even more vulnerable to the will of the Dail than a government with a clear majority.

[Mike Mac Guinness]

The Defence Acts allow the government to send up to 12 soldiers on an overseas operation without referring to Dail Eireann for approval. More than 12 soldiers requires Dail approval. That's the domestic double of the triple lock, but watch that number 12!

The 12 man rule has allowed the government (lock 1) to assign a small team, currently 7 soldiers, to the UN approved (lock 2) ISAF in Kabul without Dail authorisation (lock 3?????)(1). Oops, one lock missing! Only a double lock for ISAF!

Although ISAF has been dressed up as a peacekeeping mission, the conflict in Afghanistan is universally described as and is considered to be a war. In Afghanistan, the Euro-Nato distinction between peacekeeping and warmaking is a self-deceptive fiction, it doesn't fool or convince the Taliban, they see no distinction between ISAF and Coalition forces. Troops assigned to ISAF, if they are doing a job that needs doing at all, are releasing Afghan and Coalition troops for combat operations against the Taliban. The soldier of whatever nation in an airconditioned office in Kabul is as much a part of the war effort as the US Marine or British squaddie in a firefight with the Taliban.

Despite frequent protestations of fidelity to the concept of neutrality, for the first time in recorded history an Irish Government has sent Irish troops to participate in a foreign war (2) and has managed to do so without the approval of Dail Eireann.

I will not accuse O'Dea and other ministers of lying. I don't believe that they have consciously and deliberately lied, though they have not told the truth. What they have done is be dumb enough to have gotten entangled in the self-deceptive Euro-Nato groupthink that holds that by imposing restrictive rules of engagement on their forces in Afghanistan and limiting the degree to which they support Coalition combat operations that somehow there can be a real and genuine distintion between peacekeeping by ISAF and war by the Coalition. I think that's just pure idiocy. It's as sensible as trying to pretend a woman can be just a little pregnant but never underestimate the enduring power of self-deception.

I support the deployment of Irish troops to Afghanistan. But since it is a shooting war, not a peacekeeping operation, it should have explict approval by Dail Eireann.

Bottom Line: Sometimes the triple lock is really only a double lock. And there is a real difference between government and Dail approval. If any one of the triple locks is to be optional, it must be the UN.

(1) References to ISAF in Dail debates, note the weasel words "as appropriate" in regard to Dail approval:
http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-02/17april/D170402A.PDF
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/Xml/29/DAL20050301.PDF
"With regard to authorised missions listed in the
Defence Forces website to which a contingent of
the permanent Defence Force was-is deployed,
for example, Organisation for Security and Co-
Operation in Europe, OSCE, verification mission
in Kosovo, SFOR, KFOR, INTERFET, ISAF,
UNMIL and EUFOR, Government and Da´ il
approval, as appropriate, were obtained and the
mission was authorised by the UN."

(2) Yes, the Army's first overseas combat operations were in the Congo in the '60's. However, combat operations were infrequent, of relatively short duration, were a relatively small proportion of the overall mission, from start to finish ONUC was primarily a peacekeeping mission.

[Frank McGahon]

Thanks for that Mike. You're right that the distinction is probably meaningless in Afghanistan.

What I had in mind about the first two "locks" was not so much that the second be optional, but rather that since the government derives its authority from the Dail in the first place, the first two locks are closely linked - if the Dail does feel that the government has overreached, it can threaten a vote of no confidence. Again, I'm not arguing to drop the second lock but just that since we don't have a US style system of divided government the second lock doesn't mean an awful lot in practice. If the issue is so trivial as not to merit a vote of no confidence, it's likely the Dail would rubberstamp the government action anyway, if it is an issue of major import where the Dail would be likely to reject the proposal it's likely that there wouldn't be a great deal of difference between the government's view and the Dail's.

But, sure, from a procedural point of view, it's probably better that such action be deliberated upon in the Dail. My main beef is ceding ultimate approval to an external body in the third "lock".

[Michael Mac Guinness]

Frank,

there's not a hair's breadth of difference between us.

I agree completely that the government wouldn't put anything like this before the Dail unless it was 100% certain it would pass.

But the 12 man rule makes Dail approval unnecessary for small deployments. As I recall, it applies to all overseas assignments, even training unrelated to operational missions. But it allows the government to initiate Irish participation inn a shooting war without Dail approval.

I don't see why Dail approval should be necessary to, say, send a company of troops to partocipate in exercises or training in UK, Germany, US wherever. The 12 man rule is fine for UN missions. But not for shooting wars.

The 12 man rule gives the government a degree of freedom of action. Given the hostility to the US in some quarters, there would have been bitter opposition from the usual suspects to greater participation in ISAF. I am convinced the level of participated has been chosen precisely to avoid this. The head-in-the-sand ostrich-think about peacekeeping is also part of it.

As things stand, the government has carelessly, thoughtlessly, without adequately considering the implications, and without the approval of the Dail and therefore without the much ballyhooed triple-lock, sent Irish troops to war.