I believe it is imperative in order for Ireland to adhere to its constitutional obligation that it pursues an independent foreign and military policy, at the UN, and at meetings of the EU. This is possible, and we see many larger EU countries acting unilaterally on foreign and defence policy when it suits them.
Already it is constitutionally forbidden for Ireland to join a mandatory EU defence pact, and my view is that it is against the spirit of the Constitution (if not the letter of the law ) to voluntarily become part of any common defence arrangements on a case-by-case basis. An example of this is the so-called “Coalition of the Willing”.
So, the question arises: What policies should we adopt?
Defence of our island
The first obligation of a state is to make its territory as safe as possible for its citizens to live in.
One of the most important protections we have, whether it is personal or for a country, is to create a situation that nobody is out to harm or kill you. Unknowingly, we all apply this principal in our everyday lives as we avoid situations of potential danger, and we try to create a society that is relatively safe.
Ireland is a safe country to live in day-to-day, with a largely unarmed police force, and a public which carries few personal protection weapons or spends significant money on security. In other societies, despite high expenditure on personal security, and more widespread weapon ownership, there is a much higher risk to life.
Similarly to personal security, the first basis of security for a country is to not threaten any other country, and not align militarily with countries with overseas interests that appear to pose a threat. In other words, to avoid situations that by association you get drawn into wider worldwide conflagrations.
We have seen an example of this in the recent US/Israel v Iran war which Britain is drawn into after its base in Cyprus was attacked. Now the Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte is sabre rattling on behalf of NATO against Iran as part of a domino effect.
In the Irish case, we are better-off ensuring we remain apart from alliances that include the USA, France and UK, especially as they have overseas bases. Many of these outposts, especially for France and Britain, are remnants of their imperial pasts.
In our case, our first object should be to avoid being drawn into a conflict by association. Secondly, we should - through our embassy network and through foreign embassies accredited to Ireland - stress our policy of military neutrality, and our constitutional values of adherence to international law, and the pacific resolution of international disputes.
Irrespective of our differences with various countries, we should maintain diplomatic ties in a polite but forceful way, and diplomatically impress upon them:
1. That there is no reason to attack us, or our infrastructure, as we will do them no harm and
2. That in the event of attack we will stand our ground in the most appropriate way open to us at the time.
We need a reasonable and detailed assessment of the risks to our sovereignty and appropriate action to strengthen our resilience, including reasonable and focused investment in our defence forces.
One of our biggest challenges is the retention of trained staff in the Defence Forces due to inadequate remuneration. This should be addressed forthwith.
We also need to strengthen drug interdiction, as drugs cause so much havoc and loss in our country.
Infrastructure
In relation to maritime infrastructure, there should be clarity in relation to our responsibilities as single, sovereign power to protect and enforce our rights, not only in territorial waters (12 miles offshore ), but also in our economic zone.
We have many assets in our waters, including fishing rights, gas pipelines, electricity connectors, telecommunications cables, harbours and ports, as well as shipping. Unfortunately, most of our fishing rights are already given away through our membership of the EU, and botched fishing negotiations stretching back to 1973.
The question in relation to telecommunications cables is first to establish our responsibilities, and then consider how best to protect them, and whether cyber-attacks are a more likely method of disruption than physical attack on the cables.
In the air, I totally support the acquiring of primary radar, and any other methods of monitoring misuse of our air space by “bad actors”. Once accurate data is available, then it will be possible to really assess how best to minimise the risk to us form this source, and how best we might defend ourselves.
On land, the greatest threat from outside the state is not that we would be faced with outright war, but that there would be terrorist attacks by people from societies who have seen their countries destroyed by war, financed and armed from the major world powers.
Again, aside from normal intelligence work, our greatest protection is if Ireland is seen as a haven of world justice and a supporter of international law.
Another source of concern for me is the fact that part of our Island is controlled militarily by the UK, which is much more likely to be a magnet for attack than Ireland. At the very least, the Irish Government should insist on a protocol agreeing that any change in the present defence arrangements in terms of bases in Northern Ireland would not take place without the agreement of the Irish Government.
As the 9/11attacks, attempted assassination of US presidents, drones that closed Brussels airport and the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline all showed: there is no absolute defence against all types of attack, even for countries that spend the most on defence. So let us not delude ourselves that any of the alternatives to our policy of a hierarchy of peaceful settlement of international disputes, neutrality as outlined, diplomacy and reasonable defence will make us more immune to attack. The opposite is really the truth.
The world stage
Ireland over the decades has a proud record in both the League of Nations and the United Nations. We support International Law and promoting peace through, for example, the lead we gave on nuclear non-proliferation and peace keeping.
In relation to the United Nations, Ireland should become more vocal than ever on the central role of the UN in world affairs. We should seek support for changes to its outdated structures which date back over 80 years, and seek to make it more powerful and democratic.
There is a need for the UN to have a mechanism to give an independent view as to whether the actions of a nation in war were legal or not. Furthermore, at UN level there is a need to once again tackle the issue of the proliferation of nuclear arms, and here again we could lead.
If the world is to reduce war, and avoid impoverishing its peoples, the UN must tackle the arms race, especially limit arms used in the poorest of countries. If the money spent on arms in the Third World was spent on development aid, the world would be a better, safer place.
In relation to the EU, Ireland must oppose recent moves to deregulate how arms are produced and sold. That creates a dangerous precedent for global security.
Ireland should also oppose all EU budgetary aid to the arms industry, and oppose promoting arms production and sales as a growth area for the EU. We should also go further and make it clear that we will not fund arms production from our large contribution to the EU budget.
I have noted, recently, that five EU countries – Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland and Estonia - have announced their intention to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention against the production and placing of land mines. Land mines mainly kill and maim civilians, and were banned for that reason. Again, we should be vocal in the UN and the EU in our opposition to this.
Ireland should not get involved in international military missions not related to humanitarian relief, natural disaster or rescue unless there is a UN mandate.
Legislation
I note the recently published heads of the 2025 Defence Bill. Heading six states that Ireland will only participate in an International Force if it acts in accordance with the “the principles of the United Nations Charter” or “the principles of justice and international law”.
As we have seen in recent weeks, some countries acting unilaterally claim they are acting according to these principles, when they clearly are not.
Unfortunately, they were not restrained by any requirement to validate their claims pending UN endorsement. We may now go down the same road if we wilfully abandon neutrality in favour of a voluntary “Common Defence” in Europe.
Therefore, what we need is a process of validation of all our foreign military actions by a competent authority, which is the UN. This is exactly what we have at present.
Therefore, the ‘Triple Lock’ should remain as the third leg of the stool for the independent validation of our foreign military actions. Instead of further weakening the UN, we should reform and strengthen it.
Éamon Ó Cuív is a former deputy leader of Fianna Fáil, and cabinet minister. He served as TD for Galway West from 1992 to 2024.
