Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ireland and the EU: Defending our common European home

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Great debate all, Dev, I agree with your point of "can be we neutral anymore". That's my assertion, the traditional definition of neutrality in the 21st century is largely irrelevant when the threat is trans-national, non government actors. Regardless of where you are in the world and what your status is, the bad actors simply see westerners (infidels or whatever as pointed out above), not "Irish peacekeepers". The people with the guns and IED's don't go "hold on, don't fire, sure it's just the Irish, they're not colonials", I would suggest they don't really care at that point.

    As regards Joining a "gang", yes, the big guys in the gang will always have more of a say, be it NATO or the EU (in it's various forms) or whatever. I suggest being a member of the alliance is better than not. If you are in the club, at least you have some degree of influence and say in matters as opposed to shouting from the outside. And yes, membership comes with dues, be it monetary or some degree of rules. However, as a small country (like other small countries in Europe), I see more good being on board than not. Shared intel, customs & policing are of much more use to Ireland than buying into the Eurofighter. A conventional attack is relatively unlikely despite the slight warming of tensions between the West and Russia (my opinion), the asymmetric threat is more real.

    Whatever got us to this point, WWII, War of Independence, fine, noted, now lets move on. Declan Powers article was a good analysis, talking about the issue is fairly spot on, although I'm still opposed to the triple lock, it's silly. It's letting the UN security council dictate our foreign policy, the Dail should decide on Irish military deployments, no one else.

    Good debate, wish it was going on in Dail Eireann, it would show the national leadership is at least thinking about security issues.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by pym View Post
      ropebag do you think that, in a way, our non-aligned military status is probably more useful to NATO planners, than our membership would be?

      As already pointed out, it doesn't make any difference to the likes of ISIS and other extremist groups, but, they're not representative of every adversary or group active in an AO.

      When our troops go abroad, say to Kosovo, they're not NATO - so they don't have the same baggage, but they're serving the same goal.

      Is that better than having NATO troops who happen to be Irish, when in reality we're going to contribute very little to collective defence?

      Given that the UK, US and NATO as a whole will do whatever it takes to protect their interests if they come under threat, is a formalised peacetime mutual defence arrangement with a small country and its tiny military, really worth the bother?
      i don't think the 'non-NATOness' of Irish troops on NATO-led ops has any effect, simply because i think that if any of the local actors were even aware of it, they would consider it to be an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - European country, member of a NATO-led organisation, using NATO standards, member of the EU, trains with NATO members, whos' closest economic, political, diplomatic and defence partners are all in NATO: expecting anyone involved in conflict or failed state, outside the Foreign Policy Wonks, to either grasp - or care about - the difference seems to me to be somewhat optomistic.

      the advantage to NATO of Irish membership would, perhaps bizaarely, be the same advantage that Ireland would get - Ireland being covered by the collective defence agreement. think of it, from NATO's perspective, as finally nailing shut the back door that has always had a wonky latch and no lock... Ireland not being a NATO member has always left the westen flank feeling a bit vunerable, with the ambiguity of Irelands position being seen as an unwelcome opportunity for those wishing NATO ill to potentially exploit.

      no one believes that were Ireland to join NATO that it would contribute meaningful military force to the collective capability - but then niether does Iceland, or Luxemburg. contribution of geography means far more than any military contribution..

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        not 100% sure what your saying

        Irish troops serving with IFOR, SFOR, KFOR and ISAF were on NATO Ops, placed under NATO command (probably with national cavets (that even NATO countries had)), they were awarded NATO medals. The man on the street in Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan more than likely doesn’t no where Ireland is (never mind the fact that we aren’t in NATO).

        not 100% sure what you mean
        Basically I was wondering if the presence of non-NATO troops on a deployment was of value to a NATO led operation - giving it some kind of extra legitimacy or whatever.

        It's not an argument I'm convinced of!

        The other point was that we'd become defacto NATO members if a large conflict broke out and the UK was under direct threat. The alternative would be getting a few 1000lb digs and being effectively occupied.

        Comment


        • #49
          Irishrgr, I’m not necessarily arguing for us joining NATO by the way.

          The Government has made an attempt to get it discussed. We published our first ever Green Paper on Defence a few years ago - the public don’t care, there is probably no one saying yes and plenty of people who would say no (and not just PANA, Greens, Sinn Fein etc). The only people that care are the no’s.

          The worst bit is that the parties pushing the “neutrality” agenda are completely uneducated with regard to the responsibility that goes with neutrality. It is also possible that it is in Government’s interests not to say that either.

          What would joining NATO mean? Increase in defence expenditure, a NATO air policing mission, overseas exercises and deployments (eg Estonia (and in the past Afghanistan)), etc

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by pym View Post
            Basically I was wondering if the presence of non-NATO troops on a deployment was of value to a NATO led operation - giving it some kind of extra legitimacy or whatever.

            It's not an argument I'm convinced of!

            The other point was that we'd become defacto NATO members if a large conflict broke out and the UK was under direct threat. The alternative would be getting a few 1000lb digs and being effectively occupied.
            Yes and no I think

            Look at the NATO missions, broad spectrum of troops from all over the world. A coalition of the willing if you will, it aids legitimacy. Of course if you are looking at going up against that mission it probably doesn’t matter to you who they are, NATO/EU/UN/other or what country they are from the USA, China or Argentina.

            Major war time - I wouldn’t necessarily that we would be de facto members. But if either side wanted some key facilities (there would be zero point in occupying the whole country) they will just seize them.
            Last edited by DeV; 5 April 2018, 12:13.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by sofa View Post
              Number of years back 80s I think, Our old Congo foe the Belgium's caught a Irish priest red handed with detonators for supply to your own terrorist. For some reason the Belgium's wanted rid of him fast, so they stuck him in the back of a C130 with a number of troops (Think in case of a British intercept ) With the intension of dumping him back here. We did not have the ability to detect or stop them doing it.
              Not sure what happened in the end.?
              I believe it was Parkray timers (a small mechanical time about the size of a watch face) he got caught with...a suitcase full of them.

              They were used in the manufacture of TPU's and UVBT's.

              The loyalists couldn't source them...so they used mechanical egg timers in their devices...

              Edit to add this link... http://sydvintage.tumblr.com/post/45...ought-this-was

              He calls them memo-park...they were always parkray to me...or maybe I'm losing the plot...
              Last edited by spider; 5 April 2018, 19:33.
              'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by spider View Post
                I believe it was Parkray timers (a small mechanical time about the size of a watch face) he got caught with...a suitcase full of them.

                They were used in the manufacture of TPU's and UVBT's.

                The loyalists couldn't source them...so they used mechanical egg timers in their devices...

                Edit to add this link... http://sydvintage.tumblr.com/post/45...ought-this-was

                He calls them memo-park...they were always parkray to me...or maybe I'm losing the plot...
                His name was Patrick Ryan, he was a priest with the pallotine order. Basically the Belgians were afraid that he'd die on them when he went in hunger strike after they arrested him for ira activities do they stuck him in a c130 and flew him to Dublin, seemingly the plane had a bunch of Belgian commandos on board in case the raf tried to intercept it. He was never extradited to the u.k I met him about ten years ago at a probation service conference when he was working with traveller groups in the Dublin area

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by paul g View Post
                  His name was Patrick Ryan, he was a priest with the pallotine order. Basically the Belgians were afraid that he'd die on them when he went in hunger strike after they arrested him for ira activities do they stuck him in a c130 and flew him to Dublin, seemingly the plane had a bunch of Belgian commandos on board in case the raf tried to intercept it. He was never extradited to the u.k I met him about ten years ago at a probation service conference when he was working with traveller groups in the Dublin area
                  Nice to see he was doing his bit for society...
                  'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                  'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                  Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                  He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                  http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by paul g View Post
                    His name was Patrick Ryan, he was a priest with the pallotine order. Basically the Belgians were afraid that he'd die on them when he went in hunger strike after they arrested him for ira activities do they stuck him in a c130 and flew him to Dublin, seemingly the plane had a bunch of Belgian commandos on board in case the raf tried to intercept it. He was never extradited to the u.k I met him about ten years ago at a probation service conference when he was working with traveller groups in the Dublin area

                    Thanks for the reply.

                    To me its one example why we should be able to put a least one intercepter in to our airspace

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                      Nice to see he was doing his bit for society...
                      Sarcasm I presume, he still hated the English with a passion

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by irishrgr View Post
                        Great debate all, Dev, I agree with your point of "can be we neutral anymore". That's my assertion, the traditional definition of neutrality in the 21st century is largely irrelevant when the threat is trans-national, non government actors. Regardless of where you are in the world and what your status is, the bad actors simply see westerners (infidels or whatever as pointed out above), not "Irish peacekeepers". The people with the guns and IED's don't go "hold on, don't fire, sure it's just the Irish, they're not colonials", I would suggest they don't really care at that point.
                        And yet we're successfully serving with the UN in places like Lebanon and Syria, as we have been for decades, disproving your point.

                        As regards Joining a "gang", yes, the big guys in the gang will always have more of a say, be it NATO or the EU (in it's various forms) or whatever. I suggest being a member of the alliance is better than not. If you are in the club, at least you have some degree of influence and say in matters as opposed to shouting from the outside.
                        We will have no say, but be compelled to go along with whatever the big powers decide (like the disaster that was Iraq). This is not an improvement from our point of view.

                        Whatever got us to this point, WWII, War of Independence, fine, noted, now lets move on. Declan Powers article was a good analysis, talking about the issue is fairly spot on, although I'm still opposed to the triple lock, it's silly. It's letting the UN security council dictate our foreign policy, the Dail should decide on Irish military deployments, no one else.
                        Powers' 'analysis' had numerous logical and factual flaws, let's not puff it up too much here.

                        And let's recognise that what you're specifically endorsing is that in the matter of war, we should allow NATO to decide for us, instead of only getting involved in situations recognised by the international community as being of concern to everyone. What you're suggesting is that we surrender our independent foreign policy to whatever motivates the American president of the day (see current example).

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Ireland does not have an independent foreign policy. Apart from anything else, it allows all the permanent members of the UN Security Council (France, China, Russia, UK, USA) a veto on where it deploys it's armed forces, regardless of the will of the Dail.

                          Mind you, this might be a rather convenient and cynical cop-out, as there will be very little of real geopolitical importance, requiring an (expensive) input into anywhere there is a real risk of prolonged msjor fighting that one or other permenant member will not veto.
                          Last edited by Flamingo; 9 April 2018, 17:06.
                          'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                          'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                          Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                          He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                          http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by DaithiDub View Post
                            And let's recognise that what you're specifically endorsing is that in the matter of war, we should allow NATO to decide for us, instead of only getting involved in situations recognised by the international community as being of concern to everyone. What you're suggesting is that we surrender our independent foreign policy to whatever motivates the American president of the day (see current example).
                            Article 5 of the NATO Treaty only obliges that when one nation is militarily attacked that it is considered an attack on all, it is a mutual DEFENCE pact. It does not mean that if the US or the UK decide to invade another country that NATO goes along with it. The Germans were nowhere to be seen during the first Gulf War with Iraq. The French famously stayed at home for the second Gulf War . Each nation big or small has the right to join such actions but they are never forced too. And before anyone brings up ISAF, this was not a NATO action, it was an action which was placed under the command of NATO. A technical but vital difference.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                              Ireland does not have an independent foreign policy. Apart from anything else, it allows all the permanent members of the UN Security Council (France, China, Russia, UK, USA) a veto on where it deploys it's armed forces, regardless of the will of the Dail.
                              The Security Council and the UN General Assembly are infinitely preferable to getting caught up in Anglo-American disasters like Iraq, which the rest of the world saw coming.

                              Mind you, this might be a rather convenient and cynical cop-out, as there will be very little of real geopolitical importance, requiring an (expensive) input into anywhere there is a real risk of prolonged msjor fighting that one or other permenant member will not veto.
                              Yeah, yeah, whatever. We'll stick with the UN, you can keep NATO, and let's weigh up where the moral authority lies in the respective histories of both organisations, shall we?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by DaithiDub View Post
                                The Security Council and the UN General Assembly are infinitely preferable to getting caught up in Anglo-American disasters like Iraq, which the rest of the world saw coming.



                                Yeah, yeah, whatever. We'll stick with the UN, you can keep NATO, and let's weigh up where the moral authority lies in the respective histories of both organisations, shall we?
                                I don’t really care if Ireland joins NATO or not. But waving the “Neutrality” card and claiming the moral high ground from it as a cover for simple laziness and lack of moral courage by the political class and those who elect them is simple hypocrisy.
                                'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                                'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                                Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                                He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                                http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X