Jaded rhetoric and trite stereotypes about neutrality are inflaming triple lock debate

The Government pushed through the second stage of legislation to dismantle the controversial triple lock policy last week, against fierce opposition in the Dáil. From Sinn Féin to People Before Profit, there is unusually united resistance towards the move.

The Government maintains that lifting the mechanism which dictates how and when Irish Defence Forces can be deployed to peacekeeping missions will strengthen Irish sovereignty. But critics, including President Catherine Connolly and former president Michael D Higgins, have warned that doing so will undermine our military neutrality. Is ending the triple lock merely a way to enhance Ireland’s capacity to perform peacekeeping, or is it a fundamental reorientation of our global position?

The triple lock mechanism essentially acts as a guardrail which dictates that no more than 12 Irish troops can be sent on active missions abroad unless there is a decision from the Government, approval from the Dáil and a UN mandate on doing so. Given the current schism on the Security Council between the five permanent (P5) members (China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States), the UN has not authorised any new peacekeeping missions since 2011. The Government argues that deployment of Irish troops is essentially subject to a P5 veto, which reduces our authority over our own forces – and that to reassert total sovereignty over the Defence Forces, the need for Security Council approval needs to be abolished.

With the intention of passing the Bill before Christmas, the Government curtailed the debate last week to just four hours, which only had the effect of further inflaming tensions around the issue.

Given how readily some P5 members, not least Russia and the United States, have violated core principles of the UN Charter and international law in Ukraine and Iran, Government representatives maintain that the best way to preserve the UN is to enhance our ability to perform peacekeeping, without giving these members a say in how we do so. But Opposition parties and peace activists regard the triple lock as a vital safeguard of Irish neutrality. Connolly has argued that removing it is a fundamental shift which risks placing Irish troops in foreign wars or military alliances, essentially piercing our neutrality.

[ Taoiseach rejects ‘unfair’ comments from Michael D Higgins on military triple lockOpens in new window ]

Ironically, the neutrality debate has been muddied by the Government’s own rhetoric about being “militarily neutral but not politically neutral” – most recently on issues such as the wars in Ukraine or Gaza. The emotive reaction towards the question of neutrality, which is widely seen as one of the fundamental pillars of Irish identity and one of the central principles of our foreign policy, has added further complexity to the whole issue.

The Government has leant heavily on its “honest broker” identity as part of Ireland’s EU presidency this year, but the rhetoric about our proud peacekeeping heritage, our anti-colonial history and our collective humanitarian empathy is becoming trite and frankly tired. By wrapping our foreign policy up in military neutrality, successive governments have long sought to have our cake and eat it, putting the principle of neutrality at the centre of our position even on unrelated political questions.

This approach is feeding the current confusion and consternation, ensuring the triple lock is continuously and falsely conflated with the issue of neutrality. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence Helen McEntee’s assertions about the separation of these issues inevitably fall on deaf ears because the understanding of Ireland’s global role has been premised on our neutrality since the outbreak of the second World War in 1939. If the Government wants to persuade voters and the Opposition that dismantling the triple lock strengthens Irish sovereignty, it needs to tear up the playbook which has guided Irish foreign policy for decades.

[ Triple lock Bill passes Dáil vote amid Opposition angerOpens in new window ]

A closer look at removing the triple lock in the context of the wider reorientation of Irish foreign policy that has gradually and quietly been taking place offers a different perspective.

For one thing, Irish peacekeepers have performed a variety of roles, not merely in classic peacekeeping missions such as Lebanon, but also in the Nato mission in Kosovo and EU military operations in Bosnia and the Mediterranean. Irish troops are already contributing militarily to defence missions with different mandates, not just peacekeeping ones. This highlights that Ireland already plays a military role, beyond the UN framework, albeit in a limited way. This is not a recent development.

We need a new narrative about Ireland’s role. We have been, and remain, militarily neutral, but what does that mean for our increasing presence in the international system?

Recent manifestos from Iveagh House have also gradually reflected an increased engagement with international organisations. Just two weeks ago, the Government maximised the political capital built up from non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council in 2020-2022 to launch a successful campaign to join the UN Human Rights Council. The Government has pointed to this achievement as demonstrating how Ireland is defending the UN. Taken together with the fervent interventions at the International Court of Justice in The Hague as part of both the genocide case against Israel taken by South Africa and the Occupied Territories case mandated by the UN General Assembly, Ireland’s record on defending human rights as a core part of our foreign policy is increasingly evident.

Meanwhile, the election of former minister for finance Paschal Donohoe as managing director of the World Bank – the primary instrument for global social and economic development, the recent increase in our Overseas Development Aid and the ongoing diplomatic push to install Phil Hogan, former EU trade commissioner, as the director general of the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation, all point to deepening engagement. Yet the Government has not taken a clear position on UN reform nor said anything about making the organisation fit for purpose.

We need a new narrative about Ireland’s role. We have been, and remain, militarily neutral, but what does that mean for our increasing presence in the international system? If the objective is to strengthen our hard-fought sovereignty, we need a clear line on what we stand for.

[ Southern Lebanon devastation shows why peacekeepers must remain, Helen McEntee saysOpens in new window ]

The strength of opposition to the removal of the triple lock is not so much a reflection of a real threat to our neutrality, but the product of sustained failure of communication. If we want to achieve anything with Ireland’s role at home or abroad, sovereignty must mean agency – and not the cosy stereotypes which are feeding the current confusion.

Alanna O’Malley is professor of global governance and wealth at Erasmus University Rotterdam