Armed and neutral: Where’s the hypocrisy?

YOUR editorial (Irish Examiner, January 22) claimed it is hypocritical to be neutral and have an arms industry.

This is inaccurate on two points: firstly Ireland isn’t neutral and, secondly, even if it were, having an arms industry isn’t hypocritical.

On the first point, the internationally accepted definition of neutrality has only ever meant one thing: non-participation in a war between other countries. However, Ireland’s unique interpretation is non-participation in a military alliance.

That is not the definition of a neutral country, but of a non-aligned country.

On the second point, neutrality has never meant being anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-conscription, anti-military or, for that matter, anti-arms industry.

Sweden, Switzerland, and Austria are all proper neutral countries, yet all three have substantial arms industries and freely sell their weapons to other countries. Austria has Steyr Mannlicher, which sells the AUG assault rifle to Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.

Switzerland has Mowag, which sells the Piranha armoured personnel carrier to Australia, Canada, USA and Ireland.

And Sweden has Saab which not only makes cars — it makes the Gripen multi-role fighter used by Hungary and South Africa; the AT4 anti-tank missile used by France, USA, UK and Ireland; and the Erieye AEW radar system used by Brazil and Greece.

These neutral countries freely sell complete and fully functional weapons systems to all and sundry without violating their neutrality.

Yet your editorial claimed the manufacture and sale of dual-use components violates Ireland’s neutrality.

The debate on Ireland’s alleged neutrality is littered with myths and misrepresentations. Your editorial was an excellent opportunity to tell the public the truth of neutrality.

Sadly, it ended up being another example of uninformed opinion.

Jason FitzHarris

Rivervalley

Swords

Co Dublin.