One-sided discussion on Irish neutrality does not serve democracy
A panel on cybersecurity during the first day of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy at UCC in June 2023. The authors write that, of the 80-plus speakers at that forum, only one publicly advocates maintaining neutrality. Picture: Larry Cummins
On a recent RTÉ radio show, presidential candidate Catherine Connolly was subjected to what can only be described as an interrogation. Over the course of 20 minutes, the interviewer did not ask her a single question about why she is standing, about her values and vision, or about the grassroots campaign building around her. Instead, Connolly was repeatedly asked to justify herself in light of points of criticism quoted from and Tipp FM.
This interview was just one example of numerous negative articles and discussions about Connolly in major media outlets in recent weeks. Whilst much of this negative coverage has focused on Connolly’s past association with figures deemed beyond the pale, the real motivation seems to lie with her positions on neutrality, militarisation, and foreign policy.
Certainly those critical of government policy, whether opposition politicians or non-political actors, deserve to have their positions scrutinised by the media. But so too do the Government and those backing its positions. When it comes to discussions of neutrality, militarisation, and foreign policy, the Irish media is actively narrowing discussion by focusing on voices supportive of Government positions and accepting these positions without critical scrutiny whilst marginalising the values and concerns of the majority of the public.
The current Government’s plans to remove the triple lock are part of a longer history of measures and procedures introduced to quietly undermine Ireland’s neutrality. Although this process advanced in a rather piecemeal fashion previously, it has been the focus of a concerted Government campaign since 2022, and has picked up pace with the new Government in early 2025.
As part of this campaign, the last government staged a Consultative Forum on International Security Policy in June 2023, a sort of propaganda roadshow aimed at softening the public up for dropping neutrality.
Fronted by then tánaiste Micheál Martin, the ‘consultative forum’ came wrapped in the participatory fig leaf of open, democratic dialogue but it was clear its real purpose was to promote an already established policy agenda.
In the run-up to the event, President Michael D Higgins sparked controversy by criticising the narrow purview of the speakers selected. Indeed, of the 80-plus speakers, only one publicly advocates maintaining neutrality: Roger Cole, one of the founders of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance.
The remaining speakers included military personnel, representatives of Norway (a founding member of Nato), Switzerland (a heavily armed state currently debating its neutral status), and formerly neutral countries that have recently joined Nato (Finland and Sweden), as well as a variety of media commentators, think tank researchers, and academics, all of them critical of Irish neutrality, and many of whom publicly advocate joining military alliances and increasing military spending.
It was clear that this pale phantasm of democratic deliberation was no place for a robust plurality of opinions, let alone for questioning the direction of government policy.
Most of those granted authority to speak about Ireland’s foreign policy in the media emanate from institutional contexts that reflect powerful interests: particularly protecting Ireland’s alignment with the transatlantic axis, represented by economic dependency on US capital and increasing EU integration.
By institutional contexts we mean those structures that provide funding, resources, and access to influence. These institutions include university research centres and academic positions funded by external organisations, such as Jean Monnet professorships funded directly by the EU to champion EU integration.
It also includes think tanks and lobby groups, formed to advance particular viewpoints and interests, although they often appear in media debate as “impartial” experts.
Such organisations are of course legitimate, as is their access to media coverage. The problem is the disproportionate access they enjoy and the revolving door between government, industry, and think tanks, which operates without obvious conflicts of interest being declared during media appearances.
Ireland does not have a strong tradition of think tanks steering debate but an ecosystem of such organisations has recently begun to emerge.
Established in 2019, the Azure Forum, Ireland’s first national security research institute, aims to fill “potential vacuums with informed debate and independent thought leadership from reputable and trusted non-governmental sources to stem the possibility that public debate could otherwise be misinformed or even dominated by nefarious actors.”
Many of those involved in the Azure Forum participated in the government’s ‘consultative forum’.
The lobby group the Irish Defence and Security Association (IDSA) is another recent addition to Ireland’s non-governmental foreign policy ecosystem.
Founded in 2021 by former Irish soldier Pat O’Connor, UCD professor Ben Tonra, and Azure Forum’s executive director, Caitríona Heinl, the IDSA aims to advance Ireland’s defence and security capabilities.
This principally means lobbying the government on behalf of the arms industry, with members including Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defence company.
As early as 2022, The Ditch revealed that the IDSA had devised a strategy to influence policymakers and the public, including through the media. These internal documents demonstrate that the IDSA is acutely aware the Irish public has ‘no appetite’ for increased defence spending, and that this is an obstacle to their aims.
In 2022, Caitríona Heinl sat on the then government’s Commission on the Defence Forces, which published a report recommending significant changes to the Defence Forces’ funding, capabilities, staffing, and command structures. Further, the Defence Forces’ Research, Technology, and Innovation unit “communicates to research and industry through the IDSA”.
Hence, the IDSA, a defence industry lobby group, is not only shaping policy debate from inside and outside the government, but also acts as a broker between arms companies and the Defence Forces.
Critics of the government’s defence policy plans are frequently dismissed by hawkish commentators as an embarrassment, absurd, emotional, stuck in the past, virtue-signalling, and free-riding.
When Jean Monnet professor John O’Brennan wrote that “we stink of a hypocrisy and mythology decades in the making” ( , May 17, 2023), it is clear that appeals for an “honest debate” about neutrality are far from transparent.
Rather, those opposed to government policy are aggressively delegitimised, even as their positions rest on long-cherished values and reasoned commitments to policy traditions that have ensured security for well over half a century.
Those who support the current Government’s defence policies are of course entitled to their opinions and to express them in the media. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the Irish media to provide a forum where those views can be aired and debated.
Our concern is that the vast majority of media discussion is given over to these views and that this represents a dangerous and undemocratic narrowing of debate.
This exclusion of a diversity of opinion is particularly concerning when it is the majority opinion that is marginalised. A poll conducted earlier this year by Uplift and Ireland Thinks showed that the vast majority of the Irish public (75%) support neutrality; EU Barometer research has revealed that in Ireland for every adult that identifies defence as the highest priority for spending, there are 32 adults that think housing should be the first priority.
Who gets to make claims about Ireland’s best interests and on what basis? Where are the voices that dissent from the government’s position? Where are the voices that represent the majority of the public?
These questions go beyond the issue of Irish neutrality and bear on the foundations of Ireland’s democratic system itself.
We should not be complacent about the freedom of expression we enjoy in Ireland, especially in light of the escalating restrictions placed on free speech in putatively liberal democracies such as Britain and Germany, let alone the US. Yet, neither should we underestimate the corrosive effect that excluding diversity of opinion has on our democracy.
- Patrick Bresnihan is associate professor, Department of Geography, Maynooth University; Rory Rowan is assistant professor, Geography, TCD.
