Colin Sheridan: We may not be as neutral as we think despite what Jeremy Corbyn believes
Jeremy Corbyn addresses the annual Hiroshima-Nagasaki Peace Event at the Spanish Arch in Galway. Photo: Ray Ryan
Spend any time in Jeremy Corbyn’s company, and it’s perhaps easy to understand why he never became British prime minister.
Politics aside, he is simply much too understated. Too normal. So interested in other people that you might be forgiven for thinking it’s a diversion tactic — ask the journalist about themselves, thereby eating up the limited time available to speak of weightier things — but Corbyn’s lack of pretension is as obvious as the crack in his spectacles.
A prerequisite for 10 Downing Street has long been an ego as big as the defence budget. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Johnson — these names hardly scream humility. As he stood under grey clouds in Galway last weekend waiting to address the annual Hiroshima-Nagasaki Peace Event at the Spanish Arch, it was difficult to pick him out of the modest crowd.
It was only when he started to speak that you understood you were in the presence of a politician different to his peers. Mostly because, after 40 years on the front benches of British politics, he utterly believes in what he’s saying.
What he was saying was less a missive on peace and reconciliation, more a warning of what increased alignment with NATO will bring a “neutral” country like Ireland in the short to medium term.
“Things have undoubtedly become a lot more complicated for Ireland in recent years. I mentioned Sean McBride in my speech earlier. Your reputation as a country of neutral standing is long established, and one which should be protected.
"Your country has always had a moral basis from which to exert positive influence in world affairs, but the closer you get to NATO, the more compromised that position becomes”.
Is there a practical space in which a neutral country like Ireland can operate?
“Not if it continues like this. The EU has deliberately built for itself this close relationship with NATO, and Ursula von der Leyen is very keen on having a European army, whether she’ll achieve that I don’t know but it’s certainly conceivable that she will achieve some sort of European military command where member states contribute to it.
"What is Ireland going to do at that point, especially as one of the few remaining member states that boasts neutrality? The EU was set up as an economic and social bloc, it was never set up as a military bloc. If Ireland wants to retain its neutrality it may need to exercise its power of veto.”
We don't need a visiting politician to lecture us on the precariousness of our neutrality, but Corbyn has more than earned the right, and he views what’s long been happening in the UK as a cautionary tale for what might be coming our way.
“I believe very strongly in issues of international peace and international justice, that’s a huge part of my work. What I find increasingly worrying is that in the UK, NATO is driving military spending up to 2.5% of the GDP, which means it’ll go up by around £30bn a year by 2030.
"Think about that. That’s two-and-a-half billion pounds a month more on arms expenditure, and it’s the only area of government policy where there's predicted growth. And that’s under the new government in Britain. The Labour government.
“In all the discussion about Ukraine and Gaza and the Middle East, the word ‘peace’ rarely gets mentioned. Actors talk solely in terms of weaponry and capabilities. Not diplomatic solutions.
"Adversarial countries can very quickly reach agreements when it comes to matters of economic security, but issues involving arms sales and potential peaceful interventions seem to be impossible. You’d have to wonder why that is.”
In truth, Corbyn might well be giving Ireland's “neutrality” far too much credit. Since 2002 close to three million US troops have transited through Shannon Airport, most of them en route to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Added to that, only months after American-initiated military action in Afghanistan in order to topple the Taliban regime and eradicate Al Qaeda, the Irish Defence Forces deployed its first troops to Kabul as part of ISAF, the American-led coalition there.
Ireland continued to deploy senior officers and non-commissioned officers to staff jobs in the multinational headquarters up until 2016.
The government was allowed to do so under a Partnership for Peace initiative that allowed non-aligned nations to contribute to Nato missions without technically compromising their neutrality, once the commitment of troops remained below a certain number (in Ireland's case, the number was seven).
It was a cosy little arrangement for Ireland, one that ingratiated themselves to Washington, and exposed its officers and senior NCOs to a level of warfighting (albeit it, with the exception of our EoD teams, predominantly office-bound) they would never experience in traditional peacekeeping missions with the United Nations.
It was a mutually beneficial relationship, too. You might think that such a small number of personnel would matter little to American generals, but, when Ireland finally withdrew its token number in 2016, the withdrawal was greeted with a sense of soft betrayal.
English-speaking, western-trained officers and NCOs are a valuable commodity in multi-national headquarters. Especially those who come with agreeable dispositions, eager to please.
Yet, for all the attention the use of Shannon Airport drew, and continues to draw, the consistent deployment to ISAF (and from 2014, Resolute Support) went under the radar. This despite the staff appointments the Irish personnel fulfilled in the HQ being roles of significant importance.
One wonders then, was Jeremy Corbyn being polite when he spoke of Ireland's “moral basis” when it comes to intervening in world affairs.
The war in Afghanistan, much like its running mate in Iraq, has largely been exposed as just another vehicle of American imperialism.
Neutral Ireland supported it, more in action than words. Which speaks louder?
In May this year, the Chief of Staff of the Irish Defence Forces, Lt Gen Sean Clancy was elected as chair of the European Union Military Committee (EUMC), the highest military body within the EU. He will assume his role in 2025 and take to Brussels a staff of about 10 senior Irish officers.
His appointment comes at a time Ireland had reduced its commitment to UN Missions, and increased its involvement in EU-aligned projects, like the EU Battle Group.
General Clancy’s appointment means a new Chief of Staff needs to be identified at a time when recruitment and retention within the organisation is existentially bad, and, despite increased spending on Defence by the much-maligned department, the ineffective Human Resources element of the institution remains its most critical obstacle to progress.
It is impossible to retain personnel when you cannot assure them where they'll be working next week. It doesn’t help when a profession beset with a culture of careerism loses its Chief of Staff mid-term.
Such rudimentary issues have little to do with neutrality, but everything to do with ensuring the troops you deploy overseas are professionally trained, supported, and led, whatever the theatre.
Much uncertainty awaits. What is unequivocal is neutrality being the next big question this country faces. The government has already indicated it does not qualify for a referendum within our constitution.
Which is a shame, as that democratic mechanism may be the only forum to properly educate us all on what implications a shift in policy might have. It also would force us to confront our complicated past with the N word, and why we may not be as neutral as we think.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
