No place for neutrals
Monday September 24 2001
There are precedents: the Gulf War and the Balkan crisis. But there is also a deeper consideration. Given our close ties and our mutual interests, it would be grotesque to deny the United States any assistance or facilities it may require at a time like this.
Some fail to see that point. Their numbers are tiny, but their voices are loud. They also fail to see a wider point. They prate of neutrality, but there can be no neutrality in a struggle against international terrorism.
There can be no equivocation as to where Ireland stands. But there should never have been any equivocation in the first place.
Ireland's neutrality in the Cold War was a sham. We were not neutral in the confrontation between democracy and communism. And had we been attacked, we would not have had the capacity to defend ourselves. We would have had to rely on Nato, the organisation we had wrong-headedly refused to join.
Lately, after much controversy, we have joined the Nato-led Partnership for Peace. We have agreed to take part, but only at our own discretion, in military tasks such as peace enforcement and humanitarian missions. But we need a further step.
The future of European defence is up for decision. The complex question arises of relations between Nato and an internal European defence system; and it will be further complicated by issues arising from the struggle against international terrorism.
We need a national debate on this subject. We need an honest, objective debate. And as a precondition for honesty and objectivity, we must rid ourselves of the idea that we can stand aloof from the world's affairs.
This idea, always preposterous, is more absurd than ever at present. We are about to assume the presidency of the UN Security Council at a time of extreme danger. Harsh decisions may lie ahead. We must confront them coolly, and we must confront them rationally.
