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.
Recent Comments