4 October 2001 Edition
No to neutrality
BY ROBBIE MacGABHANN
"Who could be neutral", asked Labour leader Ruairi Quinn last weekend, in his tedious annual conference address. It was an interesting turn on the more vocal chants coming from many quarters over the past weeks that, "We cannot be neutral" when it comes to finding, convicting and punishing the perpetrators of the World Trade Centre tragedy.
If the question is whether the Dublin government should on behalf of the Irish people offer our support for the capture and imprisonment of those who carried out or planned or funded the World Trade Centre attack then the answer is an obvious yes.
The unanswered question is why is there such a link made between the events of 11 September and Irish neutrality? If neutrality means not wanting an effective and transparent system of international justice, then we as a nation should obviously count ourselves out. If neutrality means ignoring the terrible crimes committed in the USA last week, well then we should again count ourselves out.
If neutrality means ignoring UN resolutions then again maybe it is time to move on. However, we must ask is this really what Irish neutrality is about? Was it not repulsion at the foreign adventuring of the imperialist powers in the 19th and early 20th century, which still continues to this day, that generated the support for Irish neutrality? Was it not revulsion at the nuclear arms race after World War II that further fuelled public support for a positive Irish neutrality, where we have an unparalleled record in peace keeping and international aid work for a country of our size? Is it not fear of the consequences of the so-called 'Stars Wars' type defence systems and nuclear alliances that still today generate a desire for a positive Irish neutrality?
Isn't it interesting that the only slack in this effort has been in the financial commitment by successive governments to international aid? The very same governments who wouldn't commit themselves to an adequate level of funding for international aid are the ones who now want to dismantle what remains of Irish neutrality. As with the aid issue, on neutrality the government is out of step with the feelings of the Irish people.
Yes we want to be seen to be facilitating the international effort to track down the perpetrators of the 11 September attacks. But we do not want to be doing it without full knowledge of what are our facilities are being used for.
NATO representatives and Tony Blair have both said this week they have seen incontrovertible evidence of Osama Bin Laden's involvement in the World Trade Centre attacks. Has Bertie Ahern or even Ruairi Quinn been made privy to that information? Or are they making their analysis on blind trust? This, it seems, is the new Irish international policy then - blind trust with no questions asked or allowed.
In that context, traditional Irish neutrality does not seem such a bad thing.
"Who could be neutral", asked Labour leader Ruairi Quinn last weekend, in his tedious annual conference address. It was an interesting turn on the more vocal chants coming from many quarters over the past weeks that, "We cannot be neutral" when it comes to finding, convicting and punishing the perpetrators of the World Trade Centre tragedy.
If the question is whether the Dublin government should on behalf of the Irish people offer our support for the capture and imprisonment of those who carried out or planned or funded the World Trade Centre attack then the answer is an obvious yes.
The unanswered question is why is there such a link made between the events of 11 September and Irish neutrality? If neutrality means not wanting an effective and transparent system of international justice, then we as a nation should obviously count ourselves out. If neutrality means ignoring the terrible crimes committed in the USA last week, well then we should again count ourselves out.
If neutrality means ignoring UN resolutions then again maybe it is time to move on. However, we must ask is this really what Irish neutrality is about? Was it not repulsion at the foreign adventuring of the imperialist powers in the 19th and early 20th century, which still continues to this day, that generated the support for Irish neutrality? Was it not revulsion at the nuclear arms race after World War II that further fuelled public support for a positive Irish neutrality, where we have an unparalleled record in peace keeping and international aid work for a country of our size? Is it not fear of the consequences of the so-called 'Stars Wars' type defence systems and nuclear alliances that still today generate a desire for a positive Irish neutrality?
Isn't it interesting that the only slack in this effort has been in the financial commitment by successive governments to international aid? The very same governments who wouldn't commit themselves to an adequate level of funding for international aid are the ones who now want to dismantle what remains of Irish neutrality. As with the aid issue, on neutrality the government is out of step with the feelings of the Irish people.
Yes we want to be seen to be facilitating the international effort to track down the perpetrators of the 11 September attacks. But we do not want to be doing it without full knowledge of what are our facilities are being used for.
NATO representatives and Tony Blair have both said this week they have seen incontrovertible evidence of Osama Bin Laden's involvement in the World Trade Centre attacks. Has Bertie Ahern or even Ruairi Quinn been made privy to that information? Or are they making their analysis on blind trust? This, it seems, is the new Irish international policy then - blind trust with no questions asked or allowed.
In that context, traditional Irish neutrality does not seem such a bad thing.