Government should review its own credibility

THE Millward Brown IMS poll on the Lisbon Treaty is being misconstrued by some commentators.

The poll was commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and this is reflected in Foreign Affairs terminology such as “military neutrality” rather than the international law term “neutrality”. The term “diminution of Irish neutrality” is used when, in reality, Irish neutrality has been demolished since March 20, 2003 by Government complicity in the Iraq war. The inclusion of the questionable question on conscription into a European army may indicate a desire by Foreign Affairs to discredit the no campaign. To my knowledge conscription was raised not by any of the genuine no campaigners, but by the Taoiseach and Foreign Minister Micheál Martin, who claimed the no side were using it as a scare tactic.

This attempted smear backfired on the Government. Many voters may have thought conscription was an issue because the Government raised it.

In his responses to the results of this poll, Mr Martin focused on the fact that 33% thought conscription to a European army was included in the Lisbon Treaty, but failed to mention that the answers to this question were split almost evenly — 33% said yes, 37% no, and 30% said don’t know. This only indicates the Government’s failure to explain Lisbon.

A similar question on whether the “the erosion of Irish neutrality” is included in Lisbon got the following response — 42% yes, 30% no, 29% don’t know. Since Lisbon does further erode our neutrality by involving Ireland in EU defence policy with treaty commitments on military expenditure and the European Defence Agency, this indicates a partial failure by the no campaign to get these points fully across.

Important factors are being ignored in the Government’s review of Lisbon, including its own credibility in claiming the treaty does not dilute Irish neutrality, while at the same time claiming to uphold that neutrality.

There are two key factors in complying with neutrality under customary international law. First a neutral state may not engage in military alliances or commitments to defend other states in the event of war and, secondly, it may not allow troops from belligerent states to pass through its territory in time of war. NATO’s Partnership for Peace and the EU Battlegroups began the erosion of Irish neutrality by shifting Ireland’s peace maintenance priorities from UN peacekeeping to NATO and EU ‘coalitions of the willing’.

Ireland’s complicity in the Iraq war demolished the credibility of the Government in matters of peace and neutrality. The Government is now scheming to ratify parts of the Lisbon Treaty in the Dáil, learning from French and Dutch abuses of democracy.

But Irish voters are less easily fooled.

Edward Horgan

International Secretary

Peace and Neutrality

Alliance

Newtown

Castletroy

Co Limerick