Irish Neutrality - If it ain't broke, break it

"Ex-Estonian Defence Forces chief: 'Neutrality is a luxury only rich countries can afford'"

That is a headline of The Explainer section of The Journal.ie. 

Major General Meelis Kiili, spoke to The Journal about Neutrality, NATO and his country’s plan to fight Russia.

General Kiili was in Dublin in June to speak at the ‘Future of Irish Defence’ summit organized by non-profit security group Slándáil.

To find out who and what Slándáil actually is about is not the easiest task in this period of human history as search engines reveal little.

According to Journal.ie, Kiili "Major General Meelis Kiili is the National Military Representative of the Estonian Defence Forces to NATO’s European command. He was chief of staff of the Estonian Army from 2005 to 2006 and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces in 2006 to 2007. "

That the Future of Irish Defense Summit is not the Rolls Royce of the conference biz is obvious, but why put it on at all? Is there a pressing need to have a discussion of Irish defense? Is there an invasion about to take place?

One hopes the attendees had a good time, were well fed and had the airfare and accommodations comped. In the U.S., if someone were invited to an event at one of the prestige sinecure farms such as CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or, say, the Atlantic Council, Brookings, or a similar pay to play entity, they could suspect gold plated treatment and after a hard day of sleeping through lectures with approved content, the libations would be strongly prepared.

Though the schedule for the event still exists, the speeches given have not yet been found. No matter, it is doubtful that any speaker vehemently demanded the retention of Ireland's neutrality. Certainly, the Estonian general was not going to do it.

Though we don't have Kiili's speech, or if it was not a speech, discussion notes, there is the interview he gave Journal.ie as written up.

As noted in the title of the article, neutrality is for rich countries. In a way, he is right. Switzerland is rich and neutral. The U.S., where young people see their hopes for home ownership fading, and is thus sort of a poor, failed state, is hyper-interventionist.

Going a small distance further, as a vocal non-neutralist, he is saying his homeland is a poor country. According to its Wikipedia page, it is doing well enough economically.

Of course, he was probably getting at something else. That is, that small population countries need to be part of an alliance. It is a proposition with a reasonable argument. Had the Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians announced before World War II that they were adopting a policy of Neutralism, would either the Soviets or Germans have respected that?

Doubtful. Any Baltic declaration of neutrality should have been instituted much earlier than the war. There was probably little discussion at the time.

In his interview with "The Journal Kiili said that geography no longer protects countries from aggression and spoke about neutrality and the importance of a well-developed indigenous defence strategy. "

That might cause one to ask when has geography ever done anything for the Balts?

The next paragraph has him cautioning Russia:

"He also had a stark warning for Russian soldiers massing on his country’s border – “Go home and live”. "

As far as one can tell, no one from Lavrov’s or Shoigu's offices responded.

Kiili goes on to say “I think it is the wrong perception that only Estonia and the neighbourhood of the bordering countries of Russia are at risk, everybody’s at risk,” 

"Kiili, who has been educated at the US Army War College, the NATO and Baltic Defence Colleges, said that modern warfare, with its combination of lethal weaponry and hybrid cyber tactics, is a threat for every corner of the world."

In a sense, he may be right, but some may be more under threat than others for different reasons. Maybe Venezuela and Nicaragua are more in danger than Costa Rica. We can leave the question as to who is threatening whom and why to our south for another day. 

He said his State has been preparing for a Russian invasion since it became independent in the 1990s.

"So we didn’t look there were some times we were sometimes taken as being paranoid about our eastern neighbour. We were just realistic. I think the entire free world is at risk today. The battlefield it is in Ukraine but the conflict is between western society – the transatlantic world versus Russia."

The General does not address what has led up to the Ukraine invasion and whether or not Russia has a case at the very least for coming to the aid of the Donbas. Did it come up at all during the panel he was featured on?

Though one cannot say, the idea of neutralism did not seem to be on the agenda. Oh well, at least it was not conflated with isolationism, which is what is done in the US.

Maybe there is something to learn from neutralism that might be useful to countries rich or poor.

When I was much younger, I am guessing possibly in the 1970s I was reading an article about European postwar security. There is no memory of the journal, but the main point was that two European countries were able to get the Soviet forces to leave by their own efforts. The two countries were Finland and Austria.

The dim memory stayed with me. Without help from the U.S. or NATO, the behemoth to the east left. What did it mean?

Neutralism.

It wasn't easy.

The Finns came out of World War II in an uneasy situation. Vis a vis Finland, The Soviet Union held all the aces. The wrong move could have been disastrous. The Finns took up a neutral stance.

In 1952, the Finnish Prime Minister said that the 1948 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance (FCMA) with the U.S.S.R.  meant a sort of neutrality for Finland. In 1955 the Soviet base near the capital was closed. The neutrality was accepted and praised by the Soviets.

Austria's situation was a bit different.

On one day there were foreign troops on Austrian soil, the next they were gone. 

How did this happen?

Unlike Finland, the same powers that occupied Germany were in Austria as well. 

To get an idea of what happened, there is an article by Dr. Pascal Lottaz, Assistant Professor for Neutrality Studies at the Waseda Institute for Advanced Study. 

The article, Austria and its Neutrality—A Tradition with Potential, outlines what happened,

"...the parliament enacted a federal law which established that for “the purpose of the permanent assertion of its independence and (…) the inviolability of its territory, Austria freely declares its permanent neutrality.” This compromise established that Austria would not join a military alliance, neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact, and remain “off-limits” to both military blocs of the Cold War."

It has worked for Austria and unlike the Finns and Swedes, they are not set to abandon neutrality for another path.

In Professor Lottaz' article, he gives reasoned arguments for the value of the Austrian path and finishes thus:

"In the spirit of “never change a running system,” I would argue that although Austria might not need its permanent neutrality anymore the way it used to in 1955, there is no good reason to give it up. It would make more sense to use this concept also in the coming decades for the benefit of Europe and the World and capitalize on the trust that the country has won as an impartial negotiator over the past 65 years."

Ah, but the Baltic general would disagree. As there is at this point only one agreed upon European villain, is his implication that a Russian tank division is about to roll down O'Connell Street? In history, the troops swarming through Ireland to suppress freedom have come from one place, and it was not Russia.

As I suspect no avowed Irish neutralists were invited to the conference, I shall give a small defense of Hibernian non-interventionism.

As a young, or at least less old man, I possessed the book Fine Gael: British or Irish. The only part I remember is the author addressing De Valera's neutral stance not exhaustively. The exact words escape me but they were to the effect that the then Taoiseach, by his policy of not joining the war had spared Irish young men in their thousands from being slaughtered on battlefields and beaches in a war not theirs.

Before I had read that, I had not thought much about Irish neutrality. De Valera will always be controversial, but he deserves his country's gratitude.

What about Irish neutrality now? To quote Ciarán Brennan in the Burkean, "Today, lizard tongued charlatans from an array of neoconservative linked think tanks wish us to forsake our legacy of neutrality in favour of NATO membership or a role in a common EU Defence policy. Their arguments are as fickle in 2019 as they were in 1939, with Ireland’s interest best served by herself and not some interventionist liberal order."

How is the alliance working out for Estonia?

"The Estonian Defense Force (EDF) suffered nine soldier fatalities in Afghanistan — among NATO’s highest per capita fatality rates. Many more Estonian soldiers returned home wounded. Through this involvement, Estonia became a highly effective “niche contributor” to this vital part of NATO’s stabilization effort." 

Were the nine deceased and the wounded worth it? That is for the Estonian people to judge.

Will Ireland officially give up neutrality?

Evidence of heartfelt support among the media and government is not readily observable to someone overseas.

One clue, however, came when the president's wife sent a letter to the Irish Times commenting on an article calling for negotiations between the parties in the Ukraine war. The resulting firestorm of criticism was probably not a neutralist moment.

Linked is an interview Professor Lottaz did with Prof. Dr. Heinz Gärtner Professor Gärtner is a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Vienna and at Danube University. The interview is on “credible neutrality” and worth watching for anyone who has not given much thought to the subject.

As chairman, chief executive officer and only member of the Neutralist Association of the U.S. we recommend it.